Journal Pre-proof

Microplastics in the freshwater and terrestrial environments:

Prevalence, fates, impacts and sustainable solutions

Kee Hong Johnny Wong, Kek Kin Lee, Kuok Ho Daniel Tang,
Pow-Seng Yap

PII: S0048-9697(20)31023-8
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137512
Reference: STOTEN 137512

To appear in: Science of the Total Environment

Received date: 12 December 2019

Revised date: 4 February 2020
Accepted date: 21 February 2020

Please cite this article as: K.H.J. Wong, K.K. Lee, K.H.D. Tang, et al., Microplastics in
the freshwater and terrestrial environments: Prevalence, fates, impacts and sustainable
solutions, Science of the Total Environment (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2020.137512

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such
as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is
not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting,
typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this
version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production
process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers
that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2020 Published by Elsevier.

 Journal Pre-proof

Microplastics in the Freshwater and Terrestrial Environments: Prevalence,

Fates, Impacts and Sustainable Solutions

Kee Hong Johnny Wong1, Kek Kin Lee2, Kuok Ho Daniel Tang3*, Pow-Seng Yap4*

1
Sarawak Shell Berhad, 98100 Miri, Sarawak, Malaysia
2

of
Curtin University Malaysia, CDT 250, 98009 Miri, Sarawak, Malaysia,
3*
Department of Environmental Engineering, Curtin University Malaysia, CDT 250, 98009 Miri,

ro
Sarawak, Malaysia, Email: daniel.tang@curtin.edu.my
4*

-p
Department of Civil Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong – Liverpool University, Suzhou, Jiangsu
re
Province, P.R. China 215123, Email: PowSeng.Yap@xjtlu.edu.cn
lP
na
ur
Jo

1
 Journal Pre-proof

Abstract

The ubiquitous occurrences of microplastics in the environment have raised much concern and resulted

in voluminous studies related to microplastics. Studies on microplastics pollution of the marine

environment have received significantly higher attention compared to those of the freshwater and

terrestrial environments. With the impetus to better understand microplastics in the freshwater and

terrestrial environments, this review elucidates the findings of more than 100 articles related to the

prevalence, fates and impacts of microplastic therein and the sustainable solutions, mostly in the past

of
10 years. This review shows the interconnection between terrestrial and freshwater microplastics with

ro
wastewater and sewage treatment plants as the most significant contributors of environmental

-p
microplastics via sludge and effluent discharges. Microplastics in both ecosystems comprise the primary
re
and secondary forms with the latter resulted from weathering of the former. Besides retaining in soil

and infiltrating with rainwater underground, terrestrial microplastics also enter the freshwater
lP

environment. The environmental microplastics interact with the biotic and abiotic components resulting
na

in entrainment, settlement, biofouling, degradation, fragmentation and entry into the food chain, with

subsequent transfer across the food chain. The abundance of environmental microplastics is attributed
ur

to population density and urbanization though tidal cycle, storms, floods and human activities can affect
Jo

their distribution. The leaching of additives from microplastics poses major health concern and

sustainable solutions target at reduction of plastics use and disposal, substitution with bioplastics and

wastewater treatment innovations. Further studies on classification, detection, characterization and

toxicity of microplastics are necessary to permit more effective formulation of solutions.

Keywords: microplastics; fate; freshwater; occurrence; solutions; terrestrial

1 Introduction
2
 Journal Pre-proof

The use of plastics has increased by leaps and bounds due to their remarkable features including being

light-weight, highly durable and versatile, and relatively cheap to produce (Geyer et al., 2017). In 2015,

annual production of plastics was 200 times greater than it was 65 years ago (see Figure 1) (Geyer et al.,

2017). The global plastic waste was recorded at 275 million tonnes in 2010 and there were an estimated

31.9 million tonnes of mismanaged plastics which would find their ways into the environment.

Approximately 8% or 8 million tonnes of these plastics eventually went into the ocean via rivers, surface

runoffs and other means (Jambeck et al., 2015).

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

Figure 1: Annual global plastics (polymer resin and fibre) production (Geyer et al., 2017)

Where usage of primary plastics is concerned, the packaging sector used about 42% of the primary

plastics manufactured in 2015 while building and construction sector used approximately 19% of the

plastics (Geyer et al., 2017). Though the generation of plastic waste was expected to increase with the

production of plastics, sectorial generation of plastic waste does not always correlate with the quantity

of plastics used. The building and construction sector, for instance, only generated 13 million tonnes of
3
 Journal Pre-proof

plastic waste in 2015 in comparison to the 65 million tonnes used (Geyer et al., 2017). The reason is that

plastic waste generation is also affected by product life time. This is evident in the largest proportion of

plastic waste coming from the packaging sector due to short ‘in-use’ lifetime (Geyer et al., 2017). The

proportion of mismanaged plastics having the potential of entering the environment was generally

higher in developing countries than the developed ones with China leading the list, followed by

Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam and Sri Lanka (Jambeck et al., 2015). Lebreton and Andrady (2019)

projected that the global mismanaged plastic waste could increase to 155-265 million tonnes per year in

of
2060 in comparison to 60-99 million tonnes in 2015, with higher loadings coming from Africa and Asia.

ro
As the global communities are combating the increasing amount of mismanaged plastic waste, the

-p
detection of microplastics in the environment poses new concern (Ivar Do Sul and Costa, 2014).
re
Microplastics are fragments of plastics sized 5 mm or smaller which can be found in the environment

either due to the increasing use of microfibres and microbeads particularly in textiles and cosmetic
lP

products or weathering of the plastics already present in the environment (Li et al., 2016). Taking human
na

personal care products for instance, microplastics are frequently used as exfoliators in facial cleaners

and toothpaste. Exfoliators are made of polyolefin particles with size between 70 - 400 µm and it has
ur

been estimated that each use of exfoliant could release up to 94,500 microbeads depending on the
Jo

amount of microbeads in the exfoliant (Napper et al. (2015).

Similar to larger plastics, microplastics eventually end up in the ocean primarily through water flows. It

was estimated that 15 to 51 trillion microplastic fragments equivalent to between 93,000 and 236,000

tonnes in weight, were already in the oceans around the world (Ioakeimidis et al., 2016). Unlike the

larger plastics which are relatively easy to remove via natural or human-aided processes, microplastics in

the aquatic environment pose greater complexity in terms of detection and removal. Due to their small

sizes, microplastics can stay afloat or get entrapped in sediments for a long time and eventually enter

4
 Journal Pre-proof

the food chain (Rios Mendoza et al., 2018). Microplastics have been detected in animals’ tissues, for

instance in the gastrointestinal tracts of the lugworms which feed on deposits, as well as in fish and

crustaceans (Imhof et al., 2013; Watts et al., 2014). However, the risks associated with the presence of

microplastics in the food chain have not been adequately defined due to limited understanding of the

biological and eco-toxicological effects of the microplastics.

The environmental and health concerns of microplastics have resulted in much research revolving

around their occurrences, fates and impacts particularly in the marine environment (Andrady, 2011;

of
Cole et al., 2011; Ivar Do Sul and Costa, 2014). The amount of studies on marine microplastics is

ro
overwhelming. Blettler et al. (2018) ran a search through journal databases for scientific publications

-p
over an unspecified duration till May 2018 and found 440 (~87%) marine microplastics studies which
re
fulfilled their search criteria in comparison to only 64 (~13%) studies on freshwater environment.

Converting to publication rate, they revealed that publication rates of studies of plastics in the marine
lP

and freshwater environments were 41 and 7 papers per year respectively, with the former almost 6
na

times higher than the latter. The relatively lower interest in freshwater contamination by microplastics is

unjustifiable with studies highlighting the presence of plastics in rivers, lakes and water treatment plants
ur

as well as the entry of plastics into freshwater food chains (Blettler et al., 2018; de Souza Machado et al.,
Jo

2018; Talvitie et al., 2017b).

Furthermore, microplastics may leak into the terrestrial environment through uncontrolled tipping sites,

landfills and various other human activities resulting in contamination of the terrestrial systems

particularly soil (Nizzetto et al., 2016). Mason et al. (2016) warned against the significant amount of

microfibres and microbeads in untreated domestic sewage, 80% to 90% of which would be retained in

the sludge (Talvitie et al., 2017b). Copious microplastics might be present in sludge even after treatment

and application of the treated sludge as fertilizer results in entry of the microplastics into agricultural

5
 Journal Pre-proof

land (Zubris and Richards, 2005). With rising concerns over pollution of the terrestrial environment by

microplastics, there is an impetus to also include review of literature related to the fate and impacts of

microplastics in the terrestrial systems to highlight the research gaps and draw the future directions for

studies related to environmental plastics (de Souza Machado et al., 2018).

As mentioned earlier, understanding of the eco-toxicological effects of microplastics is limited owing to

the diverse sizes and shapes of microplastics and the different types of additives used in plastic

manufacturing which make the studies of these effects complicated (Chae and An, 2017). While it is

of
generally understood that large plastics can block the alimentary canal of organisms upon ingestion, as

ro
well as cause suffocation and entanglement of animals, the eco-toxicological impacts of microplastics

-p
have been harder to characterize (Chae and An, 2017). It was found that microplastics could discrupt
re
immune system and induce behavioural change of fish (Chae and An, 2017; Roach et al., 2006). Hence,

this review also aims to systematically present the biological and eco-toxicological impacts of
lP

macroplastics in attempt to define the potential future studies in this respect. As most of the existing
na

studies centre on eco-toxicological impacts of microplastics on animals, extending the review to the

impacts of microplastics on human would be essential to better understand the human toxicological,
ur

hence social impacts of microplastics (Bouwmeester et al., 2015).

Jo

While the prevalence, fates including transportation and impacts of microplastics in the freshwater and

terrestrial systems are of particular interest in the review, it is deemed beneficial to also review

potential solutions to microplastics in these systems to provide all-rounded perspectives on this topic.

Knowing that microplastics have now permeated most, if not all major ecosystems, much effort has

been channelled into reducing the environmental pollution due to microplastics (Löhr et al., 2017).

Therefore, a review of potential solutions would contribute to such efforts. This review demonstrates

elements of novelty in the sense that it focuses on microplastic pollution of the freshwater and

6
 Journal Pre-proof

terrestrial environments which has received less attention compared to that of the marine environment,

and proposes relevant solutions based on the nature of pollution in those environments to remove and

eliminate microplastics.

2 Microplastics in the Freshwater Ecosystem

2.1 Source and Prevalence

of
The majority of microplastic particles entering the freshwater are primarily from secondary microplastics

generated by the breakdown of larger plastic items, for example single-use packaging, tyres, fibres from

ro
synthetic fabrics and road paint particles (Horton et al., 2017a). These microplastics can enter

-p
freshwater through surface and agricultural runoffs or direct disposal of wastes as a result of poor waste
re
management (Free et al., 2014). Effluent discharges from wastewater and sewage treatment plants have
lP

been identified as a potential significant point source of microplastics which contribute to the entry of

microplastics into freshwater (Cole et al., 2011). Figure 2 shows an overview of the major sources of
na

microplastics in the environment.

ur
Jo

7
 Journal Pre-proof

Figure 2: Major sources of microplastics in the terrestrial and freshwater environments

Given that plastic microbeads and fibres are found abundantly in domestic and industrial wastewater,

these particles will be discharged into the environment if they are not filtered or removed during

treatment. Recent efforts have been made by different researchers to quantify and verify the

abundance of microplastics discharged by wastewater treatment plants in countries such as France (Dris

et al., 2018a), Germany (Mintenig et al., 2017), Denmark (Simon et al., 2018), Netherlands (Leslie et al.,

2017), Australia (Ziajahromi et al., 2017) and the United States (Carr et al., 2016). These studies show

of
that microplastics originating from wastewater treatment plants can range from having none to having

ro
concentrations as high as 9 x 104 particles/m3 in the effluent. It is important to note that the sampling

-p
and detection methods greatly vary across the different studies. A review by Carr et al. (2016) found
re
that considerable amount of microplastics are retained or removed by the wastewater treatment plants,

especially during primary treatment. However, a recent review by Li et al. (2018) found that even
lP

treatment efficiency of up to 95% cannot offset the large amount of microplastics discharged into
na

natural waters due to the large volume of water treated by wastewater treatment plants. Latest

estimates place the total discharge of microplastics from wastewater treatment plants at a median value
ur

of 2 x 106 particles/day (Sun et al., 2019), making wastewater treatment plants both a sink and a source
Jo

of microplastics.

There is increasing literature on microplastics pollution in freshwater environment pointing to the

ubiquitous presence of microplastics in the global freshwater systems. They have been detected in great

abundance from the surface water of inland rivers in Europe to sediments of remote lake in Mongolia

(Figure 3 and Table 1). Analysing the abundance of microplastics across different studies yield significant

variations in microplastics abundance from one local location to another as well as with time, thus

indicating possible effects from spatial, temporal and seasonal variability. The prevalence of

8
 Journal Pre-proof

microplastics in freshwater ecosystems is closely linked to anthropogenic activities. Microplastics were

more likely to be found in areas with high population density or proximity to urban centres. A study by

Eriksen et al. (2013) on microplastics in the Laurentian Great Lakes discovered that 2 out of the 21

samples had significantly higher abundance of microplastics (466,305 particles/km2) than the collective

average (43,157 particles/km2). The study attributed the large spatial variability of microplastics

pollution to population density as the two sites were downstream of two major cities, namely Detroit

and Cleveland. The urban prevalence of microplastics was also supported by Sanchez et al. (2014) who

of
reported the presence of microplastics in the guts of wild gudgeons (Gobio gobio) sampled from French

ro
urban rivers whereas none were found in gudgeons obtained from low anthropized sites. Although high

-p
population density and proximity to urban centres are crucial in dictating the prevalence of microplastics

in the freshwater environment, there are other anthropogenic factors to be considered. Free et al.
re
(2014) found microplastics pollution in Lake Hosvgol, Mongolia to be greater than Lake Huron and Lake
lP

Superior although Lake Hosvgol is situated in a remote mountainous location compared to Lake Huron

and Lake Superior which are located in significantly more developed and densely populated areas. The
na

work suggested that microplastics pollution was largely due to the country’s tourism industry and poor
ur

waste management. Another study by Wang et al. (2017) in Wuhan found microplastics abundance to
Jo

decrease with the distance from the city centre which in addition to poor waste management,

contributed to plastic pollution of inland freshwater environment. As such, population density and

quality of waste management can be established as the key anthropogenic factors affecting the

presence and abundance of microplastics in freshwater environment.

A recent study by Panno et al. (2019) highlighted the abundant presence of microplastics in the

groundwater system and this raised alarm due to the importance of groundwater as a source of drinking

water. The Karst aquifer in Illinois alone supplies 25% of the global drinking water. Panno et al. (2019)

mentioned that two karst aquifers in Illinois, USA were found to be contaminated with microplastics
9
 Journal Pre-proof

with concentration up to 16 particles per liter of groundwater. Results from the water sampling data

showed that 16 out of 17 groundwater samples taken from the karst aquifers in Illinois were

contaminated with microplastics with concentration ranging from 6.4 particles/L to 16 particles/L. The

prevalence of microplastics in groundwater is further supported by Mintenig et al. (2019) who had

conducted FTIR analysis on groundwater and drinking water samples from drinking water treatment

plant (DWTP) in 5 different regions of Germany, and found up to 62% of the water samples were

contaminated with microplastics, mostly polyester. Microplastics in groundwater could come from

of
leaching of microplastic additives from soil into the groundwater system (Yoksoulian, 2019).

ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

10
 Journal Pre-proof

Edgbaston Pool
Lake Winnipeg River Thames Lake Hovsgol
Marne River
Laurentian Great Lakes Lake Garda

Lake Bolsena
o f Three Gorges Dam
Japan rivers

o
Lake Chiusi Wuhan lakes and rivers

Antuã River

p r Dongting Lake
Hong Lake

-
Pearl River
Beijiang River

r e Vembanad Lake

l P
n a
u r
J o Bloukrans River
system

Surface water
Sediment
Surface water and sediment

Figure 3: Global studies of microplastics pollution in freshwater environment (based on 17 studies)

11
 Journal Pre-proof

Table 1: Global studies of microplastic pollution in freshwater environment

Location Sample Sampling technique Characterization Targeted size Abundance Reference
2
Laurentian Surface Manta trawl with SEM 0.355 mm to 5 mm Mean = 43,157 particles/km (Eriksen et al.,
Great Lakes water rectangular opening 16 2013)
(Superior, cm × 61 cm, 333 µm
Huron, Erie), US mesh net
Lake Garda, Italy Sediment
depth of 5 cm, 2 L
2
20 cm grid (0.04 m ), Raman spectroscopy 1 µm to 5 mm Mean:

o f
South shore = 108 particles/km
2
(Imhof et al., 2013)

ro
2
sample volume North shore = 1,108 particles/km
2
Lake Hovsgol, Surface Manta trawl with Light microscope 0.355 mm to 5 mm Mean = 20,264 particles/km (Free et al., 2014)
Mongolia water rectangular opening 16
cm × 61 cm, 333 µm

- p Range = 997 to 44,435

particles/km
2

Lake Bolsena, Surface

mesh net
Manta trawl with UV-microscope / SEM

r e
0.3 mm to 5 mm Range = 0.82 to 4.41 particles/m
3
(Fischer et al.,

P
Italy water opening of 18.5 cm × 2016)
3
Lake Chiusi, Italy 60 cm, 0.3 mm mesh Range = 2.68 to 3.36 particles/m

Wuhan inland Surface

size
20 L surface water (top FTIR
a l 50 µm to 5 mm Range = 1,660 ± 639.1 to 8,925 ± (Wang et al., 2017)

n
3
waters (20 lakes water 20 cm) pumped with 12 1,591 n/m
and 2 rivers),
China
V DC Teflon pump

u r
o
River Thames, Sediment Sediment collection Raman spectroscopy 1 mm to 4 mm Mean = 18.5 to 66 particles per (Horton et al.,
UK using stainless steel 100 g sediment 2017a)

Lake Winnipeg,
Canada
Surface
water
J
scoop, 10 cm depth
Manta trawl with
opening 18 cm × 61 cm,
333 µm mesh bag
SEM 0.33 mm to 5 mm Mean = 193,240 ± 115,567
particles/km
2

Range = 53,000 to 748,000

(Anderson et al.,
2017)
2
particles/km
3
Marne River, Surface Manta trawl with 80 Stereomicroscope 80 mm to 5 mm Mean = 100.6 ± 99.9 particles/m (Dris et al., 2018b)
3
France water um mesh net Range = 5.7 to 398.0 particles/m
Vembanad Lake, Sediment Sediment collection Raman spectroscopy <5 mm Mean = 252.80 ± 25.76 (Sruthy and
2
India using Van Veen Grab particles/m Ramasamy, 2017)
2
Range = 96 to 496 particles/m

12
 Journal Pre-proof

Location Sample Sampling technique Characterization Targeted size Abundance Reference

Edgbaston Pool, Sediment Sediment collection Binocular microscope 0.5 mm to 5 mm Maximum concentrations = 25 to (Vaughan et al.,
UK using HTH gravity corer 30 particles per 100 g dried 2017)
with 7.8 cm internal sediment
diameter, top 10 cm of
each core

f
Beijiang River, Sediment Sediment collection µ-FTIR 1 µm to 5 mm Range = 178 ± 69 to 544 ± 107 (Wang et al., 2017)
China using stainless steel items/kg dried sediment
shovel and 20 × 20 cm
wooden frame, top 2
o o
Antuã River, Surface
cm
Surface water pumped ATR-FTIR
p r
0.055 mm to 5 mm March: (Rodrigues et al.,
Portugal water and
sediment
with motor water
pump with 0.055 mm
e - Surface water = 58 to 193
items/m
3
2018)

mesh net (nylon

0.01m )
2

P r Sediment = 100 to 629 items/kg

l
Sediment collection October:
using Van Veen Grab, Surface water = 71 to 1,265
12 cm depth
a items/m
3

rn
Sediment = 18 to 514 items/kg
Bloukrans River Sediment Sediment collection Olympus dissecting 63 µm to 5 mm Average density: (Nel et al., 2018)
system, South
Africa
through random

o u
placement of quadrat,
microscope at 50×
magnifications
Summer = 6.3 ± 4.3 particles/kg
Winter = 160.1 ± 139.5 particles/kg

Dongting Lake,
China
Surface
water Teflon pump
J
upper 5 cm layer, 2 kg
sediment sample
Pumped with 12 V DC Raman spectroscopy 0.05 mm to 5 mm Mean = 1,191.7 n/m
3

Range = 900 to 2,800 n/m

3
3
(Wang et al., 2018)

Hong Lake, Mean = 2,282.5 n/m

3
China Range = 1,250 to 4,650 n/m
Three Gorges Surface 25 L surface water Raman spectroscopy 48 µm to 5 mm Mean: (Di and Wang,
3
Dam, China water and pumped using 12 V DC Surface water = 4,703 ± 2,816 n/m 2018)
sediment Teflon pump at depth 1 Sediment = 82 ± 60 n/kg
m

13
 Journal Pre-proof

Location Sample Sampling technique Characterization Targeted size Abundance Reference

Sediment collection Range:
using Van Veen grab Surface water = 379 to 7,924
3
items/m
Sediment = 25 to 300 n/kg

f
Pearl River, Surface Surface water (top 50 µ-FTIR 0.02 mm to 5 mm Mean: (Lin et al., 2018)
3
China water and cm) collected with Surface water = 2,724 items/m
sediment sampler
o
Sediment = 1,669 items/kg

ro
Sediment collection
using Van Veen grab, Range:
top 5 cm, 2 kg
sediment sample
- p Surface water = 379 to 7,924
items/m
3

Japanese inland Surface Plankton net (30 cm × FTIR

r e
335 µm to 5 mm
Sediment = 80 to 9,597 items/kg
Due to extensive data, refer to (Kataoka et al.,
waters (29
rivers)
water 75 cm), 335 µm mesh
size

l P indicated ref. 2019)

n a
u r
J o

14
 Journal Pre-proof

2.2 Fate of Microplastics

Predicting the fate of microplastics in freshwater environment is difficult due to the varying

properties of plastics. Microplastics can come in different sizes, shapes and have distinct

textures that influence their behaviours in the environment. Though the most common

forms of plastic include polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE), polystyrene (PS), low-density

polyethylene (LDPE) and high-density polyethylene (HDPE), different chemicals (e.g.

plasticizers for improvement of plasticity and viscosity) are often added by manufacturers to

of
alter and achieve the desired plastic properties. This results in plastics manufactured by

different manufacturers to have distinct properties and characteristics. These innate physical

ro
and chemical characteristics greatly dictate microplastics behaviours in the environment. For
-p
example, density of a plastic material determines which part of the water column the
re
microplastics will reside in immediately after being disposed to the aquatic environment
lP

(Cole et al., 2011; Di and Wang, 2018). If the density of the plastic material (e.g. PP, ρ = 900

kg/m3) is less than that of freshwater (ρ = 1000 kg/m3), the microplastics will likely float due
na

to positive buoyancy and be transported along the direction of flow of the water and

deposited in areas such as lakeshore sediments. Other key characteristics of microplastics

ur

that influence their behaviours include partial crystallinity, biodegradability, surface

Jo

properties, oxidation resistance and residual monomer (Andrady, 2017).

Additionally, the interaction of microplastics with the biotic and abiotic freshwater

environment add complexity to the fate of microplastics. Biofouling is a condition whereby

floating microplastics are subjected to accumulation of encrusting foulants that has a

ballasting effect over a long period (Horton et al., 2017b). The foulants encrusted on the

surface of the microplastics might result in the apparent density to increase and exceed that

of freshwater density, causing the microplastics to sink and settle to the sediment zone. In

small lakes such as Edgbaston Pool, favourable conditions like shallow depth and warm

15
 Journal Pre-proof

waters with great light exposure can cause microplastics to biofoul and sink much quicker

(Vaughan et al., 2017). In addition to biofouling, large plastic items exposed to

environmental conditions undergo different types of degradation such as a combination of

photo- and thermal- oxidative degradation by ultraviolet (UV), hydrolysis as well as biological

and mechanical processes to become smaller pieces of plastics or secondary microplastics

(Driedger et al., 2015), though the degradation of plastics in water may be hindered due to

the low temperature and oxygen levels compared to terrestrial environment (Zhang et al.,

2018). Fragmentation of large plastic items to microplastics in freshwater environment is

of
also less pronounced compared to marine systems due to the lack of turbulence and wave

ro
action in coastal waters (Vaughan et al., 2017). There are cases whereby strong wave actions
-p
at the shores of large lakes can cause significant fragmentation of microplastics (Imhof et al.,

2013). However, the lack of turbulence and wave action in large freshwater bodies and
re

rivers can cause plastics to be a persistent pollutant in the environment. For these plastics to
lP

mineralize naturally in those conditions, it is estimated to be in the order of hundreds to

thousands of years (Barnes et al., 2009).

na

2.2.1 Transport of Microplastics

ur

The presence of microplastics in different types of freshwater systems has different

Jo

implications on their fate and transport. In estuaries where freshwater and saline water

meet, the combined effect of turbulence and salinity can interact with particle density, size

and charge (Eerkes-Medrano et al., 2015). This leads to greater flocculation and overall

higher particle deposition in the estuary. In open and dynamic freshwater environment such

as rivers connected to the ocean, it is highly likely that microplastics would eventually be

transported to the marine environment (Leslie et al., 2017). For instance, the Danube river

which is the second longest river in Europe was found to be transporting 4.2 tonnes of

plastics per day to the Black Sea (Lechner et al., 2014). On the other hand, microplastics in

16
 Journal Pre-proof

isolated or static water bodies would be retained and thereby accumulate in the water

bodies acting as a sink (Eerkes-Medrano et al., 2015).

Transport of plastics within freshwater systems is greatly affected by hydrological

characteristics. These include the physical properties of a waterbody such as water flow

velocity, water depth, bottom topography and seasonal variation of water flow (Kataoka et

al., 2019; Lin et al., 2018). Low flow conditions and variation in river depth or velocity (e.g. at

bends and broader sections of a river) may lead to increased deposition of particulate

of
matter. Low hydrodynamic conditions also favour the formation of biofilm on the surfaces of

microplastics which promotes their settlement (Zhang et al., 2018). Conversely, stronger

ro
hydrodynamic factors such as high velocity conditions can result in mobilisation of previously
-p
sedimented particles and subsequent release of the contaminants from the water body to
re
other environments (Wang et al., 2017). Seasonal variation can also impact the transport of

microplastics. For example, the average sediment microplastic densities in the Bloukrans
lP

River system was found to be significantly higher in winter (160.1 particles kg-1) compared to
na

summer (6.3 particles kg-1) (Nel et al., 2018). Correspondingly, tidal cycle, storms, floods and

anthropogenic activity (e.g. dam release) can have a significant temporal effect on the
ur

transport of microplastics. Storms for example, can generate enough turbulence to

Jo

resuspend dense or biofouled microplastics or microplastics settled at the sediment zone.

Fischer et al. (2016) found the concentrations of microplastics doubled after heavy wind

effect in Lake Bolsena. This was most likely caused by lateral inputs and redistribution of

microplastics from deeper water layers in the lake. The presence of external physical forces

on a static water body can also cause resuspension and redistribution of microplastics. For

instance, a study on Lake Garda in Italy by Imhof et al. (2013) showed higher concentrations

of microplastics on the northern shore compared to the southern shore. It was concluded

that wind ‘Ora’, which blew from south to north generated sufficiently strong surface

17
 Journal Pre-proof

circulation and a counter-clockwise rotating eddy at the northern tip of Lake Garda, causing

movement and accumulation of microplastics at the northern shore.

Microplastics have been recorded to enter freshwater organisms (refer Table 2) through

multiple pathways. These pathways include but are not limited to filter feeding, suspension

feeding, direct ingestion and trophic transfer through consumption of prey exposed to

microplastics (Nelms et al., 2018). In fact, the method of food uptake by an organism can

affect the amount of microplastics ingested. For instance, microphagous feeding behaviour

of
can lead to higher intake of microplastics, likely due to incidental ingestion, whereby

microplastics are ingested along with natural food items (Silva-Cavalcanti et al., 2017).

ro
McGoran et al. (2017) found microplastics to be more abundant in the guts of benthic feeder
-p
(75%) compared to pelagic feeder (20%) obtained from the River Thames. Meanwhile, a
re
study by Hu et al. (2016) revealed that accumulation of microplastics in tadpoles was

concentration-dependent rather than time-dependent. The intake of microplastics by

lP

freshwater organisms is, therefore, affected by the type of feeding behaviour as well as the
na

concentration of microplastics in both surface water and sediments. Microplastics can also

be transferred across different habitats via migration of animals (e.g. anadromous fish),
ur

which is then passed on to either terrestrial or marine animals. The presence of

Jo

microplastics in the digestive tracts of fish or shellfish also provides an indication of the

extent of microplastic pollution within the freshwater system. For instance, Asian clams

(Corbicula fluminea) have been suggested as bioindicators because they represent internal

exposure levels of microplastics in benthic organisms, can be easily collected and are widely

distributed across the system, and can provide a hint of their food sources across a large

geographic area (Su et al., 2018).

18
 Journal Pre-proof

Table 2: Occurrence of microplastics in freshwater organisms

a
Location Species Occurrence Plastic Type / Composition Reference
Lab Lumbricus variegates (clitella worm) Gut system (93 ± 0.07%); n = 14 PMMA at 29.5 µm (Imhof et al., 2013)
Daphnia magna (crustacean) Gut system (100%); n = 10
Notodromas monacha (ostracod) Gut system (32.4 ± 3.8%); n = 24

f
Potamopyrgus antipodarum (snail) Faeces (87.8 ± 1.9%); n = 30
Gammarus pulex (crustacean) Faeces (96 ± 0.03%); n = 50

French rivers with Gobio gobio (gudgeon fish) Digestive tracts in 7 out of 11
o o
Hard and coloured fibres; (Sanchez et al., 2014)
varying environmental
pressure
sites, with occurrence between
11% and 26%; n = 186
p r
transparent fibres and pellets

Brazos River Basin, US Lepomis marochirus (bluegill sunfish) Stomach (45.2%); n = 318
e - Macroplastics (4%); (Peters and Bratton, 2016)
Lepomis megalotis (longear sunfish) Stomach (44.1%); n = 118

P r Microplastics (96%)

l
River Thames, UK Platichthys flesus (European flounder) Gut (75%); n = 66 Red or black polyamides and (McGoran et al., 2017)
Osmerus eperlanus (European smelt) Gut (20%); n = 10 other fibres including acrylic,

Rutilus rutilus (roach)

n a
Gut (32.8%); n = 64
nylon, PE and PETE
Fibres (75%), fragments (Horton et al., 2018)

u r (22.7%), films (2.3%)

Pajeú River, Brazil

Marne and Seine

Hoplosternum littorale (catfish)

Squalius cephalus (chub) J o Gut (83%); n = 48

Stomach (13%), n = 70
Fibres (46.6%), soft (36%) and
hard (17.4%) plastic particles

PETE (56%), PP (22%), PAN

(Silva-Cavalcanti et al., 2017)

(Collard et al., 2018)

rivers, France (11%), PEVA (11%)
Liver (7%), n = 60 PE (75%), PS (25%)
a PMMA – polymethyl methacrylate; PETE - polyethylene terephthalate; PAN - polyacrylonite; PEVA – polyethylene vinyl acetate

19
 Journal Pre-proof

2.3 Impacts

There are growing concerns on the impacts of microplastics in freshwater environment. The potential

toxicity of microplastics likely stems from one of three pathways: (i) ingestion of microplastics, (ii)

leakage of additives from plastics, and (iii) concentration and transfer of organic pollutants.

Ingestion of microplastics by freshwater organisms poses hazard as it can cause immediate blockage or

clogging of feeding appendages or the digestive system (Barnes et al., 2009). Some species can rapidly

of
excrete or egest microplastics, whereas other species might be incapable to do so, therefore retaining

ro
and accumulating the microplastics in their systems (Anderson et al., 2016). For instance, tadpoles of

Xenopus tropicalis were able to egest large amounts of ingested microspheres after being transferred to

-p
clean water, with 95% depuration rate after 6 days (Hu et al., 2016). Additionally, there is also potential
re
for microplastics to transfer up the food chain when freshwater species are predated by organisms at
lP

higher trophic levels (Mattsson et al., 2017). This situation is made complex due to biomagnification

whereby harmful effects from microplastics as well as from the associated additives and harmful organic
na

pollutants are greatly amplified and concentrated in the predator organism (Mattsson et al., 2017;
ur

Teuten et al., 2009). A study of the effect of PS and polycarbonate nanoparticles on the freshwater fish,

fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) found that plastic particles can act as stressors to the innate
Jo

immune response of the fish by altering the organismal defence mechanism (Greven et al., 2016).

Likewise, PS microparticles were shown to cause inflammation and lipid accumulation in the liver of

zebrafish (Danio rerio) (Lu et al., 2016).

Plastics contain additives that are added during manufacturing processes particularly toxic chemicals

such as bisphenol-A, phthalates like di-n-butyl phthalate and di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, and colouring

agents like polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and metals (Espinosa et al., 2016; Teuten et al.,

2009). Release of these additives to the environment is undesirable as it can cause plastics to lose their

20
 Journal Pre-proof

desired properties as well as expose organisms to the harmful additives. It has been suggested that most

heavy metals carried by microplastics in the environment are derived from inherent load i.e. during

manufacturing, rather than from the environment (Wang et al., 2017). Though the migration potential

of additives from the polymers depends on many factors such as the three-dimensional porous structure

of the polymers, pore size in the polymers and size of the additive molecules, the loss of additives is

deemed most likely due to unreacted constituents during the initial process, making it easy to leach out

into the environment (Teuten et al., 2009). Although different items are made of the same polymer, the

of
type and quantity of plasticizers and other additives during manufacturing dictate their toxicity in the

ro
environment.

-p
Additionally, microplastic particles can act as a medium to concentrate and transfer organic pollutants.
re
Pollutants accumulated on the particle surface can reach concentrations higher than those found in the

surrounding environment. Examples of organic chemicals commonly found in freshwater environment

lP

include polycylic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDEs),

na

dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (Anderson et al., 2016).

The reason for organic pollutants to have a higher tendency to bind with microplastics rather than
ur

macroplastics is attributed to their large surface area to volume ratio (Cole et al., 2011). These toxic
Jo

materials sorbed by the microplastics might be released when ingested by organisms where digestive

liquids are present (Teuten et al., 2009). Rochman et al. (2013) showed that persistent bioaccumulative

and toxic substances (PBT) can bioaccumulate in medaka fish after 2 months of continuous exposure to

a diet containing PE mixed with chemical pollutants sorbed from the marine environment, which

ultimately induced hepatic stress in the fish. Besides, microplastics in combination with pyrene were

found to inhibit acetylcholinesterase (AChE) enzymatic activity in goby fish, of which the enzyme is

responsible in the neuronal and neuromuscular transmission in fish (Oliveira et al., 2013). The

interaction between microplastics and organic pollutants is an area of concern in freshwater

21
 Journal Pre-proof

environment because of the proximity to the origin of use of these chemicals. Industrialised and

domestic areas in proximity to freshwater tend to dispose higher amounts of these pollutants to the

environment. Without proper treatment, this might lead to higher pollutant concentrations due to the

relatively small area for dispersal in freshwater environment.

Humans are potentially exposed to microplastics and the associated contaminants through consumption

of freshwater organisms. For consumption of fish, the occurrence of microplastics in the fish’s digestive

tract does not indicate direct human exposure as the tract is usually not consumed. There is still

of
potential however, for leaching and accumulation of organic pollutants and contaminants to the edible

ro
tissues of the fish (Wright and Kelly, 2017). In contrast to fish, shellfish are consumed whole (except for

-p
the hard shell) by human without removing the digestive tracts, which leads to direct exposure to
re
microplastics. The presence of microplastics in nine widely consumed commercial bivalves was

previously reported in China, which reveals that consumers are unknowingly exposed to hundreds of
lP

thousands of microplastic items annually (Li et al., 2015). In freshwater ecosystem, the estimation of the
na

potential health risks posed by microplastics in food sources obtained is not yet possible due to the

complexity of estimating microplastic toxicity (Cauwenberghe and Janssen, 2014). Although studies have
ur

been made on the potential human health risks of microplastics especially through occupational
Jo

exposure (Wright and Kelly, 2017), there is little progress in studies directly linking the consumption of

freshwater organisms exposed to microplastics with human health consequences.

3 Microplastics in Terrestrial Ecosystem

3.1 Source and Prevalence

Similar to freshwater environment, microplastics can exist in terrestrial environment as primary or

secondary microplastics (Cole et al., 2011). It has been estimated that 120 million tonnes of plastic

22
 Journal Pre-proof

waste will end up in landfill by 2050, most of which is expected to come from packaging (Jambeck et al.,

2015).

Sewage treatment plant has been reported as one of the important sources of terrestrial microplastics

because huge amount of plastic fibers fragmented from clothing and microplastic beads from personal

care items are present in raw domestic sewage (Gatidou et al., 2019; Magni et al., 2019) (see Figure 1).

The types of microplastics commonly found in a sewage treatment plant consist of PE, PP beads, PS,

LDPE and HDPE. According to Gatidou et al. (2019), about 3,160 particles per liter of microplastics are

of
present in raw wastewater and 170,900 particles per kg of microplastics are present in sludge from

ro
sewage treatment plants. The efficiency of microplastics removal by sewage treatment plants ranges

-p
from 72% to 99.4% depending on the type and efficiency of primary and secondary treatments adopted
re
(Talvitie et al., 2017b). It is noteworthy that the efficiency of microplastics removal by different stages of

sewage treatment is also dependent on the type of target microplastics. This complicates the removal of
lP

microplastics from sewage and wastewater and results in large amount of microplastics retained in
na

sludge after treatment.

In the agricultural sector, plastic mulching involving the use of LDPE films could be the source of
ur

microplastics in terrestrial ecosystem. Plastic mulch is commonly used in the agricultural sector to inhibit
Jo

the growth of weeds, retain the moistures in the soil and maintain the optimum temperature of the soil

(Steinmetz et al., 2016). In horticulture, polyurethane foam is widely applied to enhance soil quality as

well as to promote composting (Qi et al., 2018). These films can fragment into microplastics under

intense weather and eventually end up in the soil.

As microplastics come in different sizes and shapes, and have distinct textures that influence their

behavior and distribution in the environment, it is difficult to track the distribution and prevalence of

microplastics in terrestrial ecosystem. However, based on estimation, the amount of microplastics in

23
 Journal Pre-proof

terrestrial ecosystem is about 4 to 23 times more than the microplastics in marine ecosystem (Wang et

al., 2019). Andrady (2011) revealed that about 80% of plastics that enter the freshwater and marine

ecosystems are originally from land-based sources, indicating that the sources of microplastics are

interrelated. The interrelation is also demonstrated in this review that wastewater and sewage

treatment plants are important point sources of microplastics in the environment. However, this review

also attempts to make a distinction between the significant contributors of microplastics in the

freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems, and reveals that the sludge from wastewater and sewage

of
treatment is the major contributing factor of terrestrial microplastics, particularly when the sludge is

ro
used as soil additives for agriculture. This is fundamentally different from the microplastics retained or

-p
resuspended in treated water which are carried by water flow into waterbodies.
re
At this point, it has become obvious that the primary entry points of microplastics in terrestrial

ecosystem are agroecosystem, landfill and water treatment sludge. Several studies had been conducted
lP

on various types of soil for detection of microplastics. These studies include agricultural soil, farmland,
na

industrial soil, beach soil and floodplain soil. The results from the studies are summarized in Table 3.
ur
Jo

Table 3: Summary of abundance of microplastics in various type of soil

Type of Soil Abundance Size Composition Region Reference

Agricultural 0.54 mg/kg 1–0.05 mm PE Loess Plateau, (Zhang et al.,
land China 2018)

Farmland 78±12.91 <1mm PE, PP, Shanghai, China (Liu et al.,

items/kg Polyethersulfone 2018)
62.5±12.97 (PES)
items/kg
Industrial soil 67,500 mg/kg 1–0.05 mm PS, PVC, PE Sydney, (Fuller and
Australia Gautam, 2016)

Beach soil 220 items/kg 5 mm–1 μm PE, PP, PS Mumbai, India (Tiwari et al.,
Polyether urethane 2019)

24
 Journal Pre-proof

Floodplain soil 593 items/kg 125−500 μm PS, PVC, PE Switzerland (Scheurer and
Styrene butadiene Bigalke, 2018)
rubber (SBR)
Tree soils 42,960 items/kg 1–0.05 mm LDPE Yunnan, China (Zhang and Liu,
PP 2018)

3.2 Fates and Transport

of
Huge amount of microplastics is deposited in sludge after sewage treatment. It is estimated that an

average of 113 million of microplastics are deposited in each tonne of sludge generated daily by an

ro
Italian wastewater treatment plant (Magni et al., 2019). The biosolids obtained from the drying of sludge

-p
are often reused as fertilizer in soil for agricultural purposes (Corradini et al., 2019). The microplastics
re
will remain in the soil after the nutrients from the biosolids are absorbed by the crops, and are
lP

subsequently transported throughout the soil system via physical, chemical and biological mechanisms.

The top layer of soil serves as a degradative environment for physical and chemical degradation of
na

plastic wastes due to direct sunlight radiation, high oxygen availability and intense temperature. The
ur

plastics undergo physical changes through biodegradation of plastics which takes place with the help of

soil microbes and terrestrial biota (see Figure 4), as well as through fragmentation of macroplastics
Jo

expedited by agricultural activities such as tilling and crop rotation. Nonetheless, several studies had

pointed out that the degradation of plastics in soil is a slow process which will take up to decades.

According to Raddadi and Fava (2019), PP lost only 0.4% of its total weight through a year of soil

incubation while polyvinyl chloride (PVC) remained constant in weight after 35 years of soil incubation.

High persistence of microplastics in soil poses toxicity risks to the soil physical environment. Leaching,

another degradative process undergone by microplastics, is the primary reason for the microplastic

contaminants to enter the groundwater system. Lately, Yoksoulian (2019) had detected microplastics in

25
 Journal Pre-proof

the groundwater sampled from karst aquifers of Illinois, USA. Transport through biosphere could be the

possible route for the microplastics to be leached into the groundwater system. Additionally, soil biotas

have been shown to aid the movement of microplastics through biosphere. Soil biotas such as springtails

and earthworms have been found to transport microplastics such PE beads as far as 10 cm down the

earth within 21 days of observation (Fahrenkamp-Uppenbrink, 2016).

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur

Figure 4: The fates and transport of microplastics in terrestrial ecosystem

Jo

Landfills provide an avenue for the environmental transport of microplastics. The plastics in the landfill

could be carried into the terrestrial environment accidentally by windblown littering and mishandling of

waste by trash collector. Wind action might disperse the plastics far from its source (Jachman, 2017). On

the other hand, when the plastics are dumped in the landfill, the leaching of toxin from plastic wastes

can also occur in the landfill. Leaching and degradation of additives such as plasticizer, organotin

26
 Journal Pre-proof

compound and bisphenol A could emit toxin via the leachate which could pollute the nearby rivers as

well as groundwater system if untreated (Bejgarn et al., 2015; Teuten et al., 2009).

While microplastics can also be released into the atmosphere in the form of airborne microplastics,

current literature focuses mainly on grounded microplastics. Dris et al. (2016) found that airborne

microplastics were present in significant amount in atmospheric fallout where 118 airborne

microplastics per m3 of air per day had been reported and the amount of airborne microplastics varied

with seasonal and climate changes. One possible source of airborne microplastic is textile and washing

of
of textile releases an estimated 1900 fibers per wash (Browne et al., 2011). Others include plastic wastes

ro
incinerators, landfills and degraded plastic waste. These airborne microplastics are transported into the

-p
terrestrial ecosystem by windblown mechanism and eventually enter human through inhalation.
re
lP

3.3 Impact
na

Daly (2019) pointed out that microplastics are found abundantly in farmland as well as other terrestrial

ecosystems. Based on the cross-sectional observational study done by Omidi et al. (2012), it was found
ur

that about 27% of 230 goats and 50% of 185 sheep contained plastic debris in their digestive tracts.
Jo

Zhao et al. (2016) also found that 94% of the 17 examined terrestrial birds ingested a total of 364

microplastics. Table 4 summarizes the studies showing presence of microplastics in terrestrial fauna.

When microplastics are introduced into the terrestrial ecosystem, they might exhibit appealing

appearances and scents that attract terrestrial fauna to feed on them. These microplastics remain in the

digestive tracts of terrestrial fauna, blocking the food passage and eventually lead to starvation and

death. Moreover, the leaching of additives from microplastics during weathering process poses high risk

of toxicity in terrestrial fauna through direct ingestion (Foschungsverbund, 2018). de Souza Machado et

al. (2018) pointed out that the leaching of chemicals from microplastics additives such as phthalates and
27
 Journal Pre-proof

bisphenol A can potentially disrupt the endocrine system in vertebrates through estrogenic effects. As

with microplastics in freshwater, the terrestrial microplastics can also be transferred into the food

chains and eventually the food webs (Asmonaite and Almroth, 2019). Huerta Lwanga et al. (2017)

examined the transfer of microplastics in terrestrial food chain and revealed significant amount of LDPE

microplastics in the feces of chicken from home gardens which consumed earthworms previously

exposed to the microplastics. On the other hand, inhalation of airborne microplastics could result in

asthma, allergic alveolitis, pneumonia and bronchitis. However, Prata (2018) claimed that the effect of

of
inhaled airborne microplastics on human varies depending on the metabolism and vulnerability of an

ro
individual.

-p
re
Table 4: Summary of the presence of microplastics in terrestrial fauna
lP

Species Occurrence n Location Reference

Sika Deer Digestive tract 14 Nara Park, Japan (Coffey, 2019)
(Cervus nippon) (64%)
na

Camel Stomach (55%) 16 United Arab Emirates (Plastic Soup Foundation,

(Camelus 2018)
dromedaries)
ur

Goat Digestive Tract 230 Birjand, Iran (Omidi et al., 2012)

(Capra aegagrus (27%)
Jo

hircus)

Sheep 185
(Ovis aries) Digestive Tract
(50%)

Anecic Earthworm 210 Wurmwelten, Dassel, (Rillig et al., 2017)

(Lumbricus terrestris) Gut system (97%) Germany

Springtails Gut system 175 Lab (Maaß et al., 2017)

(Folsomia
candida)

(Proisotoma minuta) Gut system 175

African Elephant Stomach 8 Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe (Gogo, 2016)

(Loxodonta)
28
 Journal Pre-proof

Terrestrial Birds Gastrointestinal 17 Shanghai, China (Zhao et al., 2016)

Tracts (94.1%)

Chicken Faeces (98%); 50 Campeche, Mexico (Huerta Lwanga et al., 2017)

(Gallus gallus
domesticu)

Moreover, at high concentrations, microplastics can affect the soil biophysical environment. Leaching of

additives from chlorinated microplastics alters the geochemical cycles in the soil systems (Fuller and

Gautam, 2016). Huerta Lwanga et al. (2016) claimed that the concentration level of microplastics over

50% by weight in topsoil can be environmentally disastrous because microplastics are non-

of
biodegradable within the soil due to low oxidizing and UV exposure (Tibbetts, 2014). The persistence of

ro
microplastics in soil might also affect the survival, behavior, growth and reproduction of soil fauna. For

-p
instance, the springtails and earthworms that are found abundantly in the soil could transport

microplastics in soil (Maaß et al., 2017). According to Zhu et al. (2018), microplastics in the soil
re
biophysical environment were found to negatively affect the earthworms by disrupting the gut
lP

microbiomes in the species. With altered gut microbiomes in earthworms, they experience great decline
na

in growth and reproduction rate. Cao et al. (2017) conducted an experimental study on the effect of PS-

microplastics exposure on earthworms Eisenia Fetida sp. and showed that about 40% of earthworms
ur

were dead due to high exposure of PS-microplastics at 2% concentration.

Jo

4 Sustainable Solutions to Microplastics Pollution in

Freshwater and Terrestrial Ecosystems

4.1 Sustainable Solutions

This review aims to also suggest solutions which are sustainable to the pressing issue of microplastics

pollution mainly in the freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems. An understanding of how a sustainable
29
 Journal Pre-proof

solution is differentiated from a common solution is deemed necessary. The Brundtland Report in 1987

(WCED, 1987) defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present

without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. The report recognized

that environmental protection, economic growth and social equity were the three fundamental

components to sustainable development. Herewith, we regard sustainable solution as sharing the

attributes of sustainable development, characterized by the same key components. A sustainable

solution is, therefore, one that is long-lasting and resilient, environmentally responsible, economically

of
feasible and socially acceptable. It is important to note that the solutions discussed below are by no

ro
means exhaustive, but would contribute significantly to decreasing the abundance of microplastics in

-p
the environment. The solutions for microplastics pollution in the environment can be categorized into

upstream and downstream. Upstream solutions for microplastic pollution revolve around intervention
re
and prevention of microplastics from entering the environment while downstream solutions involve
lP

actively recovering or removing microplastics from the environment.

na

4.2 Upstream Solutions

ur

Process principles dictate that by reducing the loss of plastics to the environment, microplastics input to

the terrestrial and freshwater environments would be subsequently reduced. Upstream solutions
Jo

therefore, centre on the intervention and prevention of plastic release to the environment during their

life cycle.

Currently, the vast majority of monomers used to make plastics are derived from fossil hydrocarbons

(Geyer et al., 2017). Though all plastics are theoretically biodegradable, the extremely slow rate at which

they degrade cause them to be considered as non-biodegradable (Soroudi and Jakubowicz, 2013). As a

replacement to conventional plastics, bioplastics have garnered significant attention due to their ability

to biodegrade in the order of months or years. The term bioplastics can actually refer to either

30
 Journal Pre-proof

bioplastics made from biomass and renewable sources such as poly-lactic acid and

polyhyroxyalkanoates, or plastics produced from fossil fuel such as polybutylene adipate terephthalate

and polycaprolactone (Thakur et al., 2018). Since bioplastics produced from petrochemicals are not CO2

neutral, they have been excluded from being considered as sustainable and thus, the focus is placed on

bioplastics made from renewable sources. In the environment, the rate at which bioplastics degrade can

be affected by different conditions such as temperature, moisture, pH, oxygen contents, availability of

microbes or the type of environment (Emadian et al., 2017). Terrestrial environment is generally more

of
suited for degradation of bioplastics due to the availability of diverse microorganisms that enable higher

ro
biodegradability as compared to other environments such as water or air.

-p
Bioplastics have the greatest potential to be used in the packaging industry, whereby single-use plastics
re
constitute the largest percentage of plastic wastes disposed to the environment. Especially in the food

packaging industry that dominates the usage of single-use plastics, specific bioplastics can be
lP

engineered to meet the respective requirements for each type of product (Peelman et al., 2013).
na

Currently, the problems associated with bioplastics, including high manufacturing cost, different

standards for bioplastics biodegradability and their competing nature for arable land used for food
ur

production, make them less attractive for widespread application. However, there have been advances
Jo

with cheaper crops and next-generation microalgae-based bioplastic production that is grown on non-

arable land (Karan et al., 2019). Coupled with sustainable plastics production, this has the additional

benefit of expanding the global photosynthetic capacity, leading to the reduction of CO2. Adherence to

specific standards, such as the European standard for compostable packaging (EN 13432) would require

bioplastics used in food packaging to break down under industrial-scale compositing conditions within

12 weeks, which streamlines bioplastic waste management. Management strategies such as composting

should be considered as part of an integrated waste management strategy. Disposal of bioplastics to

landfills only contributes to more management problems in landfills (Emadian et al., 2017) while
31
 Journal Pre-proof

incineration of wastes is associated with noxious gaseous emissions which have caused harm to the

environment and human health (Eriksen et al., 2018).

This review has identified population density and quality of waste management as key anthropogenic

factors causing the wide occurrences of microplastics in the environment. As controlling population

density is impractical and likewise unsustainable, improving the quality of waste management should be

prioritized. To some extent, this can be achieved through better legislation and law enforcement. For

instance, enforcing a hefty penalty for indiscriminate disposal of plastic wastes (i.e. littering) to the

of
environment and an outright ban or limitation on producers from using primary microplastics in their

ro
products (e.g. microbeads in cosmetics) that leads to microplastics pollution. This is synonymous to the

-p
polluter pays principle. Currently, plastic wastes are disposed either by landfilling or incineration and
re
these are considered unsustainable due to landfill management problems and an increase in net CO2

from the combustion of fossil-fuel derived plastics. In order to improve the quality of waste
lP

management, recycling of plastics should be the primary focus instead of relying on outdated waste
na

management strategies. However, most countries do not have the necessary infrastructure to deal with

plastic recycling. Besides, the escalating volume of plastic wastes and prohibitive recycling costs could
ur

discourage recycling efforts and offset the feasibility of recycling. This has been manifested via the
Jo

turning down of plastic wastes sent for recycling in China since 2018 as the country has imposed more

stringent regulations on the contaminants present in foreign plastic wastes (Katz, 2019).

Wastewater treatment plants can remove up to 95% of microplastics from wastewater, but that

efficiency is unacceptable given the large volume of wastewater being treated. The simplest method to

overcome this issue is to supplement existing wastewater treatment plants with additional treatment

technologies to increase their treatment efficiency. Talvitie et al. (2017a) tested different types of

advanced wastewater treatment technologies and found that membrane bioreactor (MBR) removed the

32
 Journal Pre-proof

highest percentage of microplastics during treatment at 99.9% while rapid sand filter and dissolved air

flotation could remove 97% and 95% of microplastics respectively. A removal efficiency of 99.9% is

highly desired as the amount of microplastics expected to be discharged to the environment could

theoretically be reduced by up to 98%. Economically however, the implementation of MBR entails high

investment cost that is coupled with issues such as constant clogging of membrane pores that leads to

frequent backwashing and short lifespans (Judd, 2016). Nonetheless, MBR has gained significant

attention in its implementation with available modifications to make them more energy efficient, fouling

of
resistant and cheaper to operate after the initial investment costs (Gabarrón et al., 2014; Judd, 2016;

ro
Sepehri and Sarrafzadeh, 2018).

-p
re
4.3 Downstream Solutions
lP

Without upstream solutions, downstream solutions lack sustainability. While the physical methods of

recovering or removing microplastics from the environment (e.g. mesh net, pumps and other capturing
na

devices) are technically achievable, those methods would not be logistically feasible due to the large
ur

amount of microplastics already present in the environment. Using these methods might also disrupt
Jo

local ecosystems. At present, these physical recovery methods are mainly used for scientific studies.

Meanwhile, plastics can also be removed from the environment either chemically or biologically (i.e.

bacteria that degrades plastics). Indeed, advances have been made in studies related to plastic-

degrading bacteria, for instance Ideonella sakaiensis 201-F6 was shown to degrade and assimilate

polyethylene terephthalate in a lab scale study (Yoshida et al., 2016). This biological method has not

been tested of its ability to be used in an open environment and its use is limited to small localized areas

resembling a bioreactor. Introduction of plastic-degrading bacteria into the open environment also has a

limitation, namely the inherent disability of the bacteria to distinguish between the wanted and
33
 Journal Pre-proof

unwanted plastics since many items and structures are made of plastics. Besides, the efficiency of

plastic-degrading bacteria is constrained by the myriads of additives used for the manufacturing of

plastics. It is uncertain whether the bacteria can effectively degrade all types of plastics. It can be argued

that a new generation of plastics can be developed to distinguish itself from the current generation so

that plastic degrading bacteria can be engineered to target the specific plastics in the environment.

However, this requires a major overhaul of the way plastics are manufactured and more prohibitively,

the high costs associated with the replacement of current plastic materials with the newly developed

of
plastics. Generally, biological removal of microplastics from the environment is not feasible in the

ro
foreseeable future and should only be reserved for targeted recycling of plastics at plant scale whereby

-p
the properties of plastics are known. The same can also be implicated on the chemical pathway of

degrading microplastics found in the open environment. Recently, a study by Kang et al. (2019)
re
successfully degraded cosmetic microplastics into nontoxic products using functionalized carbon
lP

nanosprings. However, the study was conducted under specific hydrothermal conditions and the

microplastics were extracted beforehand, which would not be the case for wastewater present in the
na

environment. In fact, both biological and chemical pathways of plastic degradation offer promising
ur

solution to degrading plastic at the reactor scale. At present, environmental clean-up of microplastics
Jo

from freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems alone without upstream solutions is not economically nor

logistically feasible. Thus, upstream solutions will be comparatively more sustainable.

With both sustainable upsteam and downstream solutions discussed above implemented, a gradual

reduction in microplastics found in terrestrial and freshwater environments is foreseen (refer Figure 5).

Dynamic freshwater environment will continuously channel microplastics from its system to sinks, either

in isolated system (e.g. lakes) or the marine environment. In terrestrial environment, microplastics that

are transported vertically through biota or agricultural activities to the groundwater system might

eventually enter lakes, streams or even wetlands. However, in areas without any media to assist their
34
 Journal Pre-proof

transport, microplastics will likely accumulate, especially in subsurface location whereby they are

shielded from photo and thermal degradation (Ng et al., 2018). As such, anaerobic conditions may form,

and oxidative degradation process is inhibited in these deeper layers of soil. For example, it would take

more than 300 years to break down a 60 µm thick PE in soil (Kyrikou and Briassoulis, 2007).

Subsequently, for static regions of highly localized microplastics concentrations, downstream solution

like physical removal and recovery using passive filters or pumps could be implemented, followed by

intensive chemical or biological degradation in reactors. There is also the option of leaving plastic

of
materials in-situ for them to biodegrade naturally. This option if considered, first requires detailed

ro
understanding of long term microplastics impacts to the environment as well as constant monitoring in

-p
sensitive regions for assurance. Other than that, the underlying question remains however, on who is

responsible for existing microplastics found outside of each country’s exclusive economic zone. With
re
effective legislation and agreement between countries on how plastics are to be manufactured, used
lP

and managed, microplastics pollution can be controlled effectively. It is therefore imperative that policy

makers work together and reach an agreement, so that we can move forward in removing this emerging
na

pollutant from the environment.

ur
Jo

35
 Journal Pre-proof

of
UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM
SOLUTIONS SOLUTIONS

ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur

Figure 5: Sources of microplastics and the potential solutions to microplastics pollution in freshwater
Jo

and terrestrial environments

5 Recommendations for Future Studies

36
 Journal Pre-proof

In order to advance the current knowledge of microplastics and make progress in overcoming issues

related to environmental microplastics, below are some recommendations in addressing their sources,

fate and transport, as well as the associated impacts.

 It is essential to formalize a universally agreed size classification of microplastics. Currently,

there are still some minor inconsistencies in the upper- and lower-bound limits of the size of

microplastics. With consensus in the definitions of microplastics based on their sizes, more

consistent comparisons of microplastics can be made for industrial and research purposes.

of
 As there may be possibilities of different variants of microplastics being detected in the near

ro
future, new classifications of the shape, size and constituent of microplastics may need to be


established.
-p
There is still a huge challenge to be resolved for the methods of detection, sampling, analysis, and
re
characterization of microplastics, particularly in terms of their accuracy, reliability, simplicity and
lP

efficiency. Thus, it is imperative to standardize the respective methods.

 Many different units have been used for microplastics abundance. For example, as shown in
na

Tables 1 and 3, the units include particles, items or mass divided by either area, volume or mass.
ur

This results in the difficulty for data comparison. Hence, there is a need for standardization of the

unit for microplastics abundance.

Jo

 The prevalence of microplastics in the freshwater and terrestrial environments is a huge concern.

Thus, more study needs to be carried out to determine additional potential sources, including both

the point sources and non-point sources. In particular, more field-scale investigations need to be

carried out in view of the increasing detection of microplastics even at remote locations.

 Both spatial and temporal dynamics of microplastics may need to be systematically studied in

greater detail. By spatial, it means the coverage of the investigated area may need to be extended

and if possible, both the freshwater and terrestrial environments which are in close vicinity may

be simultaneously investigated to better understand the interconnection of the fate and transport
37
 Journal Pre-proof

of the microplastics. By temporal, the chronosequential effects of microplastics may be evaluated

in order to determine how the fate and transport of microplastics are changing with respect to

time.

 As some regions in the world are affected by different climates, it is worthwhile to examine the

effect of climate variability on the fate and transport of microplastics.

 While some basic statistical assessments have been conducted on the data for microplastics (e.g.

in terms of mean and standard deviation), it is also useful to perform additional statistical

of
analysis, e.g. using analysis of variance (ANOVA) or method of least squares in order to obtain a

higher degree of data reliability.

ro
 The impacts of microplastics on the hydrological properties of the freshwater environment, and

-p
the geological properties of the terrestrial environment appear to be less focused in the literature,
re
and thus merit more attention and study.

 As microplastics are known to have entered the food chain, risk assessment of the toxicity of
lP

microplastics needs to be carried out and the best management practices of microplastics need to
na

be adopted. Where possible, dose-response relationships for the toxicity need to be determined.

 Although this review paper focuses on freshwater and terrestrial environments, the interaction of
ur

microplastics is also linked to marine and air environments. Hence, the cumulative effects arising
Jo

from the interactions between different environmental compartments need to be analyzed in a

deeper context.

 The complexity of soil ecosystem in the terrestrial compartment is high. More work needs to be

done on identifying the impacts of microplastics on the biotas in the soil. It is also essential to

conduct more study on a wider range of biotas without limiting to the same type of biota. This is

to obtain a more comprehensive database for holistic understanding of the impacts.

 To date, there is a lack of study of the combined effects of microplastics in relation to their co-

existence with the additives or other chemical constituents. As microplastics contain some of

38
 Journal Pre-proof

these compounds, the effects of these chemicals on the degradation processes of microplastics

need to be systematically studied. The hazards due to the leaching of these chemicals should also

be assessed accordingly.

 More convincing mathematical models need to be established in order to predict the

concentration of microplastics in the environment, and to better understand the sources, fate and

transport of the microplastics in the environment. Importantly, the models need to be validated

with reliable and high-quality experimental data.

of
 The mechanisms of microplastics formation, fragmentation, agglomeration, and

degradation/breakdown are especially important for fundamental scientific understanding. There

ro
are many processes such as physico-chemical or biological pathways which need to be

-p
understood more deeply. Furthermore, it is likely that combined effects of different processes are
re
involved. At present, this aspect appears to be significantly lacking in the literature. Thus, more

systematic study on this issue is required.

lP

Given the recent increasing trend of microplastics in the published literature, there is no doubt that this
na

trend will continue to escalate. For now, it is the anthropogenic activities which will need to be heavily

scrutinized and carefully tackled as they have direct impact on the microplastics occurrences in the
ur

different environmental compartments, which include the freshwater and terrestrial environments. By
Jo

understanding and acknowledging the fact that the resultant adverse effects will eventually reach

human themselves, it is thus critical that effective and timely efforts be taken to reduce the

microplastics in the environment.

Conclusions

The prevalence of microplastics in the freshwater and terrestrial environments is yet to be studied

comprehensively, particularly in comparison to marine environment. Recently, evidences suggest that

the microplastics in the freshwater and terrestrial environments are ubiquitous, indicating that there are
39
 Journal Pre-proof

many sources of microplastics In addition, the fate and transport studies reveal that there is a complex

migration of microplastics using different pathways and that there are many governing environmental

processes involved. Furthermore, it has been thoroughly discussed that there are some negative impacts

of microplastics on animals and humans, particularly in terms of toxicity and the transfer of

microplastics along the food chain. Thus, it is necessary for sustainable solutions to be effectively

implemented in order to control or minimize the adverse effects of microplastics to the environment,

animals and humans. Relevant recommendations are also given to highlight issues which merit

of
deliberation and also to suggest some insights into the future directions. Finally, while there are many

ro
challenges to be overcome for microplastics, it is anticipated that with concerted efforts from all

-p
stakeholders, the majority of the problems arising from microplastics can be successfully addressed

eventually. This review therefore significantly contributes to overcoming the challenges of

re
environmental microplastics by comprehensively and systematically presenting issues related to
lP

occurrences, fates and impacts of microplastics as well as the potential solutions and future studies to

permit better understanding of the problems and framing of sustainable solutions.

na

References
ur

Anderson, J.C., Park, B.J., Palace, V.P., 2016. Microplastics in aquatic environments: Implications for
Jo

Canadian ecosystems. Environ. Pollut. 218, 269–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.06.074

Anderson, P.J., Warrack, S., Langen, V., Challis, J.K., Hanson, M.L., Rennie, M.D., 2017. Microplastic

contamination in Lake Winnipeg, Canada. Environ. Pollut. 225, 223–231.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.02.072

Andrady, A.L., 2017. The plastic in microplastics: A review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 119, 12–22.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.01.082

Andrady, A.L., 2011. Microplastics in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62, 1596–1605.

40
 Journal Pre-proof

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.05.030

Asmonaite, G., Almroth, B.C., 2019. Effects of Microplastics on Organisms and Impacts on the

Environment: Balancing the Known and Unknown.

Barnes, D.K.A., Galgani, F., Thompson, R.C., Barlaz, M., 2009. Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic

debris in global environments. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 364, 1985–1998.

https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0205

of
Bejgarn, S., MacLeod, M., Bogdal, C., Breitholtz, M., 2015. Toxicity of leachate from weathering plastics:

ro
An exploratory screening study with Nitocra spinipes. Chemosphere 132, 114–119.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.03.010
-p
Blettler, M.C.M., Abrial, E., Khan, F.R., Sivri, N., Espinola, L.A., 2018. Freshwater plastic pollution:
re
Recognizing research biases and identifying knowledge gaps. Water Res. 143, 416–424.
lP

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.06.015
na

Bouwmeester, H., Hollman, P.C.H., Peters, R.J.B., 2015. Potential Health Impact of Environmentally

Released Micro- and Nanoplastics in the Human Food Production Chain: Experiences from
ur

Nanotoxicology. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 8932–8947. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b01090

Jo

Browne, M.A., Crump, P., Niven, S.J., Teuten, E., Tonkin, A., Galloway, T., Thompson, R., 2011.

Accumulation of microplastic on shorelines woldwide: Sources and sinks. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45,

9175–9179. https://doi.org/10.1021/es201811s

Cao, D., Wang, X., Luo, X., Liu, G., Zheng, H., 2017. Effects of polystyrene microplastics on the fitness of

earthworms in an agricultural soil. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 61, 1–5.

https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/61/1/012148

Carr, S.A., Liu, J., Tesoro, A.G., 2016. Transport and fate of microplastic particles in wastewater
41
 Journal Pre-proof

treatment plants. Water Res. 91, 174–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.01.002

Cauwenberghe, L. Van, Janssen, C.R., 2014. Microplastics in bivalves cultured for human consumption.

Environ. Pollut. 193, 65–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2014.06.010

Chae, Y., An, Y.J., 2017. Effects of micro- and nanoplastics on aquatic ecosystems: Current research

trends and perspectives. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 124, 624–632.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.01.070

of
Coffey, H., 2019. Japan’s Famous Nara Deers Killed by Tourists’ Plastic Waste. Independent.

ro
Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Halsband, C., Galloway, T.S., 2011. Microplastics as contaminants in the marine

-p
environment: A review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62, 2588–2597.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.09.025
re
lP

Collard, F., Gasperi, J., Gilbert, B., Eppe, G., Azimi, S., Rocher, V., Tassin, B., 2018. Anthropogenic

particles in the stomach contents and liver of the freshwater fish Squalius cephalus. Sci. Total
na

Environ. 643, 1257–1264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.313

ur

Corradini, F., Meza, P., Eguiluz, R., Casado, F., Huerta-Lwanga, E., Geissen, V., 2019. Evidence of

microplastic accumulation in agricultural soils from sewage sludge disposal. Sci. Total Environ. 671,
Jo

411–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.368

de Souza Machado, A.A., Kloas, W., Zarfl, C., Hempel, S., Rillig, M.C., 2018. Microplastics as an emerging

threat to terrestrial ecosystems. Glob. Chang. Biol. 24, 1405–1416.

https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14020

Di, M., Wang, J., 2018. Microplastics in surface waters and sediments of the Three Gorges Reservoir,

China. Sci. Total Environ. 616–617, 1620–1627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.150

42
 Journal Pre-proof

Driedger, A.G.J., Dürr, H.H., Mitchell, K., Van Cappellen, P., 2015. Plastic debris in the Laurentian Great

Lakes: A review. J. Great Lakes Res. 41, 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2014.12.020

Dris, R., Gasperi, J., Rocher, V., Saad, M., Tassin, B., Dris, R., Gasperi, J., Rocher, V., Saad, M., Renault, N.,

Dris, R., Gasperi, C.J., Rocher, A.V., Saad, B.M., A, A.N.R., A, B.T., 2018a. Microplastic contamination

in an urban area : a case study in Greater Paris. Environ. Chem.

Dris, R., Gasperi, J., Saad, M., Mirande, C., Tassin, B., 2016. Synthetic fibers in atmospheric fallout: A

of
source of microplastics in the environment? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 104, 290–293.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.01.006

ro
Dris, R., Gasperi, J., Tassin, B., 2018b. Sources and Fate of Microplastics in Urban Areas: A Focus on Paris
-p
Megacity, in: Wagner, M., Lambert, S. (Eds.), Freshwater Microplastics : Emerging Environmental
re
Contaminants? Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
lP

319-61615-5_4
na

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.
ur

Water Res. 75, 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.02.012

Jo

Emadian, S.M., Onay, T.T., Demirel, B., 2017. Biodegradation of bioplastics in natural environments.

Waste Manag. 59, 526–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.10.006

Eriksen, M., Mason, S., Wilson, S., Box, C., Zellers, A., Edwards, W., Farley, H., Amato, S., 2013.

Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 77,

177–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.10.007

Eriksen, M., Thiel, M., Prindiville, M., Kiessling, T., 2018. Microplastic: What Are the Solutions?, in:

Freshwater Microplastics The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry. pp. 273–298.

43
 Journal Pre-proof

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61615-5_13

Espinosa, C., Esteban, M.Á., Cuesta, A., 2016. Microplastics in Aquatic Environments and Their

Toxicological Implications for Fish, in: Toxicology - New Aspects to This Scientific Conundrum.

InTech, p. 13. https://doi.org/10.5772/64815

Fahrenkamp-Uppenbrink, J., 2016. Earthworms on a microplastics diet. Science (80-. ). 351, 1039–1039.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.351.6277.1039-a

of
Fischer, E.K., Paglialonga, L., Czech, E., Tamminga, M., 2016. Microplastic pollution in lakes and lake

ro
shoreline sediments - A case study on Lake Bolsena and Lake Chiusi (central Italy). Environ. Pollut.

213, 648–657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.03.012

-p
Foschungsverbund, B., 2018. An underestimated threat: Land-based pollution with microplastics [WWW
re
Document]. Sciencedaily. URL
lP

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180205125728.htm (accessed 11.23.19).

na

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. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 85, 156–163.
ur

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.06.001
Jo

Fuller, S., Gautam, A., 2016. A Procedure for Measuring Microplastics using Pressurized Fluid Extraction.

Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 5774–5780. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b00816

Gabarrón, S., Ferrero, G., Dalmau, M., Comas, J., Rodriguez-Roda, I., 2014. Assessment of energy-saving

strategies and operational costs in full-scale membrane bioreactors. J. Environ. Manage. 134, 8–14.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.12.023

Gatidou, G., Arvaniti, O.S., Stasinakis, A.S., 2019. Review on the occurrence and fate of microplastics in

Sewage Treatment Plants. J. Hazard. Mater. 367, 504–512.

44
 Journal Pre-proof

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.12.081

Geyer, R., Jambeck, J.R., Law, K.L., 2017. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci. Adv. 25–

29. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782

Gogo, J., 2016. Electric fence for Vic Falls dumpsite. . . 8 elephants dead from consuming plastics. Herald.

Greven, A.C., Merk, T., Karagöz, F., Mohr, K., Klapper, M., Jovanovid, B., Palid, D., 2016. Polycarbonate

and polystyrene nanoplastic particles act as stressors to the innate immune system of fathead

of
minnow (Pimephales promelas). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 35, 3093–3100.

ro
https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.3501

-p
Horton, A.A., Jürgens, M.D., Lahive, E., van Bodegom, P.M., Vijver, M.G., 2018. The influence of exposure

and physiology on microplastic ingestion by the freshwater fish Rutilus rutilus (roach) in the River
re
Thames, UK. Environ. Pollut. 236, 188–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.01.044
lP

Horton, A.A., Svendsen, C., Williams, R.J., Spurgeon, D.J., Lahive, E., 2017a. Large microplastic particles in
na

sediments of tributaries of the River Thames, UK – Abundance, sources and methods for effective

quantification. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 114, 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.09.004

ur

Horton, A.A., Walton, A., Spurgeon, D.J., Lahive, E., Svendsen, C., 2017b. Microplastics in freshwater and
Jo

terrestrial environments: Evaluating the current understanding to identify the knowledge gaps and

future research priorities. Sci. Total Environ. 586, 127–141.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.190

Hu, L., Su, L., Xue, Y., Mu, J., Zhu, J., Xu, J., Shi, H., 2016. Chemosphere Uptake , accumulation and

elimination of polystyrene microspheres in tadpoles of Xenopus tropicalis. Chemosphere 164, 611–

617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.09.002

Huerta Lwanga, E., Gertsen, H., Gooren, H., Peters, P., Salánki, T., Van Der Ploeg, M., Besseling, E.,
45
 Journal Pre-proof

Koelmans, A.A., Geissen, V., 2016. Microplastics in the Terrestrial Ecosystem: Implications for

Lumbricus terrestris (Oligochaeta, Lumbricidae). Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 2685–2691.

https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b05478

Huerta Lwanga, E., Mendoza Vega, J., Ku Quej, V., Chi, J. de los A., Sanchez del Cid, L., Chi, C., Escalona

Segura, G., Gertsen, H., Salánki, T., van der Ploeg, M., Koelmans, A.A., Geissen, V., 2017. Field

evidence for transfer of plastic debris along a terrestrial food chain. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–7.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-14588-2

of
Imhof, H.K., Ivleva, N.P., Schmid, J., Niessner, R., Laforsch, C., 2013. Contamination of beach sediments

ro
of a subalpine lake with microplastic particles. Curr. Biol. 23, R867–R868.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.09.001 -p
re
Ioakeimidis, C., Fotopoulou, K.N., Karapanagioti, H.K., Geraga, M., Zeri, C., Papathanassiou, E., Galgani,
lP

F., Papatheodorou, G., 2016. The degradation potential of PET bottles in the marine environment:

An ATR-FTIR based approach. Sci. Rep. 6, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep23501

na

Ivar Do Sul, J.A., Costa, M.F., 2014. The present and future of microplastic pollution in the marine
ur

environment. Environ. Pollut. 185, 352–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.10.036

Jo

Jachman, M., 2017. Cleanup continues of wind-blown litter from landfill [WWW Document]. Homet.

Life. URL https://www.hometownlife.com/story/news/2017/03/14/cleanup-continues-wind-

blown-dump-litter/99156240/ (accessed 11.23.19).

Jambeck, J.R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T.R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., Narayan, R., Law, K.L., 2015.

Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science (80-. ). 347, 768–771.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260352

Judd, S.J., 2016. The status of industrial and municipal effluent treatment with membrane bioreactor

46
 Journal Pre-proof

technology. Chem. Eng. J. 305, 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2015.08.141

Kang, J., Zhou, L., Duan, X., Sun, H., Ao, Z., Wang, S., 2019. Degradation of Cosmetic Microplastics via

Functionalized Carbon Nanosprings. Matter 1, 745–758.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matt.2019.06.004

Karan, H., Funk, C., Grabert, M., Oey, M., Hankamer, B., 2019. Green Bioplastics as Part of a Circular

Bioeconomy. Trends Plant Sci. 24, 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2018.11.010

of
Kataoka, T., Nihei, Y., Kudou, K., Hinata, H., 2019. Assessment of the sources and inflow processes of

ro
microplastics in the river environments of Japan. Environ. Pollut. 244, 958–965.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.10.111
-p
Katz, C., 2019. Piling Up: How China’s Ban on Importing Waste Has Stalled Global Recycling [WWW
re
Document]. Yale Environ. 360. URL https://e360.yale.edu/features/piling-up-how-chinas-ban-on-
lP

importing-waste-has-stalled-global-recycling (accessed 11.23.19).

na

Kyrikou, I., Briassoulis, D., 2007. Biodegradation of agricultural plastic films: A critical review. J. Polym.

Environ. 15, 125–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-007-0053-8

ur

Lebreton, L., Andrady, A., 2019. Future scenarios of global plastic waste generation and disposal.
Jo

Palgrave Commun. 5, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0212-7

Lechner, A., Keckeis, H., Lumesberger-Loisl, F., Zens, B., Krusch, R., Tritthart, M., Glas, M., Schludermann,

E., 2014. The Danube so colourful: A potpourri of plastic litter outnumbers fish larvae in Europe’s

second largest river. Environ. Pollut. 188, 177–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2014.02.006

Leslie, H.A., Brandsma, S.H., van Velzen, M.J.M., Vethaak, A.D., 2017. Microplastics en route: Field

measurements in the Dutch river delta and Amsterdam canals, wastewater treatment plants,

North Sea sediments and biota. Environ. Int. 101, 133–142.

47
 Journal Pre-proof

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2017.01.018

Li, J., Liu, H., Chen, J.P., 2018. Microplastics in freshwater systems: A review on occurrence,

environmental effects, and methods for microplastics detection. Water Res. 137, 362–374.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.12.056

Li, J., Yang, D., Li, L., Jabeen, K., Shi, H., 2015. Microplastics in commercial bivalves from China. Environ.

Pollut. 207, 190–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.09.018

of
Li, W.C., Tse, H.F., Fok, L., 2016. Plastic waste in the marine environment: A review of sources,

ro
occurrence and effects. Sci. Total Environ. 566–567, 333–349.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.084
-p
Lin, L., Zuo, L.Z., Peng, J.P., Cai, L.Q., Fok, L., Yan, Y., Li, H.X., Xu, X.R., 2018. Occurrence and distribution
re
of microplastics in an urban river: A case study in the Pearl River along Guangzhou City, China. Sci.
lP

Total Environ. 644, 375–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.327

na

Liu, M., Lu, S., Song, Y., Lei, L., Hu, J., Lv, W., Zhou, W., Cao, C., Shi, H., Yang, X., He, D., 2018. Microplastic

and mesoplastic pollution in farmland soils in suburbs of Shanghai, China. Environ. Pollut. 242,
ur

855–862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.07.051
Jo

Löhr, A., Savelli, H., Beunen, R., Kalz, M., Ragas, A., Van Belleghem, F., 2017. Solutions for global marine

litter pollution. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 28, 90–99.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.08.009

Lu, Y., Zhang, Y., Deng, Y., Jiang, W., Zhao, Y., Geng, J., Ding, L., Ren, H., 2016. Uptake and Accumulation

of Polystyrene Microplastics in Zebrafish (Danio rerio) and Toxic Effects in Liver. Environ. Sci.

Technol. 50, 4054–4060. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b00183

Maaß, S., Daphi, D., Lehmann, A., Rillig, M.C., 2017. Transport of microplastics by two collembolan
48
 Journal Pre-proof

species. Environ. Pollut. 225, 456–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.03.009

Magni, S., Binelli, A., Pittura, L., Avio, C.G., Della Torre, C., Parenti, C.C., Gorbi, S., Regoli, F., 2019. The

fate of microplastics in an Italian Wastewater Treatment Plant. Sci. Total Environ. 652, 602–610.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.269

Mason, S.A., Garneau, D., Sutton, R., Chu, Y., Ehmann, K., Barnes, J., Fink, P., Papazissimos, D., Rogers,

D.L., 2016. Microplastic pollution is widely detected in US municipal wastewater treatment plant

of
effluent. Environ. Pollut. 218, 1045–1054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.08.056

ro
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
-p
chain. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-10813-0
re
McGoran, A.R., Clark, P.F., Morritt, D., 2017. Presence of microplastic in the digestive tracts of European
lP

flounder, Platichthys flesus, and European smelt, Osmerus eperlanus, from the River Thames.
na

Environ. Pollut. 220, 744–751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.09.078

Mintenig, S.M., Int-Veen, I., Löder, M.G.J., Primpke, S., Gerdts, G., 2017. Identification of microplastic in
ur

effluents of waste water treatment plants using focal plane array-based micro-Fourier-transform
Jo

infrared imaging. Water Res. 108, 365–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.11.015

Mintenig, S.M., Löder, M.G.J., Primpke, S., Gerdts, G., 2019. Low numbers of microplastics detected in

drinking water from ground water sources. Sci. Total Environ. 648, 631–635.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.178

Napper, I.E., Bakir, A., Rowland, S.J., Thompson, R.C., 2015. Characterisation, quantity and sorptive

properties of microplastics extracted from cosmetics. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 99, 178–185.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.07.029

49
 Journal Pre-proof

Nel, H.A., Dalu, T., Wasserman, R.J., 2018. Sinks and sources: Assessing microplastic abundance in river

sediment and deposit feeders in an Austral temperate urban river system. Sci. Total Environ. 612,

950–956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.298

Nelms, S.E., Galloway, T.S., Godley, B.J., Jarvis, D.S., Lindeque, P.K., 2018. Investigating microplastic

trophic transfer in marine top predators. Environ. Pollut. 238, 999–1007.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.02.016

of
Ng, E.L., Huerta Lwanga, E., Eldridge, S.M., Johnston, P., Hu, H.W., Geissen, V., Chen, D., 2018. An

overview of microplastic and nanoplastic pollution in agroecosystems. Sci. Total Environ. 627,

ro
1377–1388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.341

-p
Nizzetto, L., Futter, M., Langaas, S., 2016. Are Agricultural Soils Dumps for Microplastics of Urban Origin?
re
Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 10777–10779. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04140
lP

Oliveira, M., Ribeiro, A., Hylland, K., Guilhermino, L., 2013. Single and combined effects of microplastics
na

and pyrene on juveniles (0+ group) of the common goby Pomatoschistus microps (Teleostei,

Gobiidae). Ecol. Indic. 34, 641–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.06.019

ur

Omidi, A., Naeemipoor, H., Hosseini, M., 2012. Plastic debris in the digestive tract of sheep and goats: An
Jo

increasing environmental contamination in birjand, Iran. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 88, 691–

694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-012-0587-x

Panno, S. V., Kelly, W.R., Scott, J., Zheng, W., McNeish, R.E., Holm, N., Hoellein, T.J., Baranski, E.L., 2019.

Microplastic Contamination in Karst Groundwater Systems. Groundwater 57, 189–196.

https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.12862

Peelman, N., Ragaert, P., De Meulenaer, B., Adons, D., Peeters, R., Cardon, L., Van Impe, F., Devlieghere,

F., 2013. Application of bioplastics for food packaging. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 32, 128–141.

50
 Journal Pre-proof

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2013.06.003

Peters, C.A., Bratton, S.P., 2016. Urbanization is a major influence on microplastic ingestion by sunfish in

the Brazos River Basin, Central Texas, USA. Environ. Pollut. 210, 380–387.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.01.018

Plastic Soup Foundation, 2018. Camels continue to die of plastic in the desert [WWW Document]. URL

https://www.plasticsoupfoundation.org/en/2018/01/camels-continue-to-die-of-plastic-in-the-

of
dessert/ (accessed 11.23.19).

ro
Prata, J.C., 2018. Airborne microplastics: Consequences to human health? Environ. Pollut. 234, 115–126.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.11.043
-p
Qi, Y., Yang, X., Pelaez, A.M., Huerta Lwanga, E., Beriot, N., Gertsen, H., Garbeva, P., Geissen, V., 2018.
re
Macro- and micro- plastics in soil-plant system: Effects of plastic mulch film residues on wheat
lP

(Triticum aestivum) growth. Sci. Total Environ. 645, 1048–1056.

na

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.229

Raddadi, N., Fava, F., 2019. Biodegradation of oil-based plastics in the environment: Existing knowledge
ur

and needs of research and innovation. Sci. Total Environ. 679, 148–158.
Jo

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.419

Rillig, M.C., Ziersch, L., Hempel, S., 2017. Microplastic transport in soil by earthworms. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–6.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-01594-7

Rios Mendoza, L.M., Karapanagioti, H., Álvarez, N.R., 2018. Micro(nanoplastics) in the marine

environment: Current knowledge and gaps. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Heal. 1, 47–51.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2017.11.004

Roach, P., Farrar, D., Perry, C.C., 2006. Surface tailoring for controlled protein adsorption: Effect of
51
 Journal Pre-proof

topography at the nanometer scale and chemistry. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 128, 3939–3945.

https://doi.org/10.1021/ja056278e

Rochman, C.M., Hoh, E., Kurobe, T., Teh, S.J., 2013. Ingested plastic transfers hazardous chemicals to fish

and induces hepatic stress. Sci. Rep. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep03263

Rodrigues, M.O., Abrantes, N., Gonçalves, F.J.M., Nogueira, H., Marques, J.C., Gonçalves, A.M.M., 2018.

Spatial and temporal distribution of microplastics in water and sediments of a freshwater system

of
(Antuã River, Portugal). Sci. Total Environ. 633, 1549–1559.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.233

ro
Sanchez, W., Bender, C., Porcher, J.M., 2014. Wild gudgeons (Gobio gobio) from French rivers are
-p
contaminated by microplastics: Preliminary study and first evidence. Environ. Res. 128, 98–100.
re
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2013.11.004
lP

Scheurer, M., Bigalke, M., 2018. Microplastics in Swiss Floodplain Soils. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 3591–
na

3598. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b06003

Sepehri, A., Sarrafzadeh, M.H., 2018. Effect of nitrifiers community on fouling mitigation and nitrification
ur

efficiency in a membrane bioreactor. Chem. Eng. Process. - Process Intensif. 128, 10–18.
Jo

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.2018.04.006

Silva-Cavalcanti, J.S., Silva, J.D.B., França, E.J. de, Araújo, M.C.B. de, Gusmão, F., 2017. Microplastics

ingestion by a common tropical freshwater fishing resource. Environ. Pollut. 221, 218–226.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.11.068

Simon, M., van Alst, N., Vollertsen, J., 2018. Quantification of microplastic mass and removal rates at

wastewater treatment plants applying Focal Plane Array (FPA)-based Fourier Transform Infrared

(FT-IR) imaging. Water Res. 142, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.05.019

52
 Journal Pre-proof

Soroudi, A., Jakubowicz, I., 2013. Recycling of bioplastics, their blends and biocomposites: A review. Eur.

Polym. J. 49, 2839–2858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2013.07.025

Sruthy, S., Ramasamy, E. V., 2017. Microplastic pollution in Vembanad Lake, Kerala, India: The first

report of microplastics in lake and estuarine sediments in India. Environ. Pollut. 222, 315–322.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.12.038

Steinmetz, Z., Wollmann, C., Schaefer, M., Buchmann, C., David, J., Tröger, J., Muñoz, K., Frör, O.,

of
Schaumann, G.E., 2016. Plastic mulching in agriculture. Trading short-term agronomic benefits for

long-term soil degradation? Sci. Total Environ. 550, 690–705.

ro
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.01.153

-p
Su, L., Cai, H., Kolandhasamy, P., Wu, C., Rochman, C.M., Shi, H., 2018. Using the Asian clam as an
re
indicator of microplastic pollution in freshwater ecosystems. Environ. Pollut. 234, 347–355.
lP

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.11.075
na

Sun, J., Dai, X., Wang, Q., van Loosdrecht, M.C.M., Ni, B.J., 2019. Microplastics in wastewater treatment

plants: Detection, occurrence and removal. Water Res. 152, 21–37.

ur

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.12.050
Jo

Talvitie, J., Mikola, A., Koistinen, A., Setälä, O., 2017a. Solutions to microplastic pollution – Removal of

microplastics from wastewater effluent with advanced wastewater treatment technologies. Water

Res. 123, 401–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.07.005

Talvitie, J., Mikola, A., Setälä, O., Heinonen, M., Koistinen, A., 2017b. How well is microlitter purified

from wastewater? – A detailed study on the stepwise removal of microlitter in a tertiary level

wastewater treatment plant. Water Res. 109, 164–172.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.11.046

53
 Journal Pre-proof

Teuten, E.L., Saquing, J.M., Knappe, D.R.U., Rowland, S.J., Barlaz, M.A., Jonsson, S., Bjo, A., Thompson,

R.C., Galloway, T.S., Yamashita, R., Ochi, D., Watanuki, Y., Moore, C., Viet, P.H., Tana, T.S., 2009.

Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the environment and to wildlife. Philos. Trans.

R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 364, 2027–2045. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0284

Thakur, S., Chaudhary, J., Sharma, B., Verma, A., Tamulevicius, S., Thakur, V.K., 2018. Sustainability of

bioplastics: Opportunities and challenges. Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem. 13, 68–75.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsc.2018.04.013

of
Tibbetts, J.H., 2014. The Global Plastic Breakdown: How Microplastics are Shredding Ocean Health

ro
[WWW Document]. Sea Grant Consort. URL

-p
https://seagrant.noaa.gov/News/Article/ArtMID/1660/ArticleID/251/The-Global-Plastic-
re
Breakdown-How-Microplastics-Are-Shredding-Ocean-Health (accessed 11.23.19).
lP

Tiwari, M., Rathod, T.D., Ajmal, P.Y., Bhangare, R.C., Sahu, S.K., 2019. Distribution and characterization

of microplastics in beach sand from three different Indian coastal environments. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
na

140, 262–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.01.055

ur

Vaughan, R., Turner, S.D., Rose, N.L., 2017. Microplastics in the sediments of a UK urban lake. Environ.
Jo

Pollut. 229, 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.05.057

Wang, J., Liu, X., Li, Y., Powell, T., Wang, X., Wang, G., Zhang, P., 2019. Microplastics as contaminants in

the soil environment: A mini-review. Sci. Total Environ. 691, 848–857.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.209

Wang, J., Peng, J., Tan, Z., Gao, Y., Zhan, Z., Chen, Q., Cai, L., 2017. Microplastics in the surface sediments

from the Beijiang River littoral zone: Composition, abundance, surface textures and interaction

with heavy metals. Chemosphere 171, 248–258.

54
 Journal Pre-proof

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.12.074

Wang, W., Ndungu, A.W., Li, Z., Wang, J., 2017. Microplastics pollution in inland freshwaters of China: A

case study in urban surface waters of Wuhan, China. Sci. Total Environ. 575, 1369–1374.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.213

Wang, W., Yuan, W., Chen, Y., Wang, J., 2018. Microplastics in surface waters of Dongting Lake and Hong

Lake, China. Sci. Total Environ. 633, 539–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.211

of
Watts, A.J.R., Lewis, C., Goodhead, R.M., Beckett, S.J., Moger, J., Tyler, C.R., Galloway, T.S., 2014. Uptake

ro
and retention of microplastics by the shore crab carcinus maenas. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 8823–

8830. https://doi.org/10.1021/es501090e
-p
WCED, 1987. Our Common Future, Oxford University Press. Oxford.
re
lP

Wright, S.L., Kelly, F.J., 2017. Plastic and Human Health: A Micro Issue? Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 6634–

6647. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b00423
na

Yoksoulian, L., 2019. Microplastic contamination found in common source of groundwater, researchers
ur

report. Phys Org.

Jo

Yoshida, S., Hiraga, K., Takehana, T., Taniguchi, I., Yamaji, H., Maeda, Y., Toyohara, K., Miyamoto, K.,

Kimura, Y., Oda, K., 2016. A bacterium that degrades and assimilates poly(ethylene terephthalate).

Science (80-. ). 351, 1196–1199. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad6359

Zhang, G.S., Liu, Y.F., 2018. The distribution of microplastics in soil aggregate fractions in southwestern

China. Sci. Total Environ. 642, 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.004

Zhang, K., Shi, H., Peng, J., Wang, Y., Xiong, X., Wu, C., Lam, P.K.S., 2018. Microplastic pollution in China’s

inland water systems: A review of findings, methods, characteristics, effects, and management. Sci.

55
 Journal Pre-proof

Total Environ. 630, 1641–1653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.300

Zhang, S., Yang, X., Gertsen, H., Peters, P., Salánki, T., Geissen, V., 2018. A simple method for the

extraction and identification of light density microplastics from soil. Sci. Total Environ. 616–617,

1056–1065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.213

Zhao, S., Zhu, L., Li, D., 2016. Microscopic anthropogenic litter in terrestrial birds from Shanghai, China:

Not only plastics but also natural fibers. Sci. Total Environ. 550, 1110–1115.

of
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.01.112

ro
Zhu, B.K., Fang, Y.M., Zhu, D., Christie, P., Ke, X., Zhu, Y.G., 2018. Exposure to nanoplastics disturbs the

gut microbiome in the soil oligochaete Enchytraeus crypticus. Environ. Pollut. 239, 408–415.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.04.017 -p
re
Ziajahromi, S., Neale, P.A., Rintoul, L., Leusch, F.D.L., 2017. Wastewater treatment plants as a pathway
lP

for microplastics: Development of a new approach to sample wastewater-based microplastics.

na

Water Res. 112, 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.01.042

Zubris, K.A. V., Richards, B.K., 2005. Synthetic fibers as an indicator of land application of sludge.
ur

Environ. Pollut. 138, 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2005.04.013

Jo

56
 Journal Pre-proof

Declaration of interests

☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered
as potential competing interests:

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

57
 Journal Pre-proof

Graphical abstract

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

58
 Journal Pre-proof

Highlights

 Wastewater and sewage treatment plants are the largest contributors of microplastics.

 Population density and urbanization affect abundance of microplastics.

 Microplastics permeate the biotic and abiotic components of freshwater and terrestrial systems.

 Sustainable solutions include upstream substitution of plastics and downstream reduction.

 Standardization in classification, analysis and quantification of microplastics is necessary.

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

59