See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/319147852

Microplastic pollution, a threat to marine ecosystem and human health: a

short review

Article  in  Environmental Science and Pollution Research · September 2017

DOI: 10.1007/s11356-017-9910-8

CITATIONS READS

127 5,030

2 authors:

Shivika Sharma Subhankar Chatterjee

Central University of Himachal Pradesh Central University of Himachal Pradesh
12 PUBLICATIONS   305 CITATIONS    26 PUBLICATIONS   628 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Biodegradation & bioinformatics View project

Environmental studies- SDG View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Subhankar Chatterjee on 17 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Microplastic pollution, a threat to marine
ecosystem and human health: a short
review

Shivika Sharma & Subhankar Chatterjee

Environmental Science and Pollution

Research

ISSN 0944-1344
Volume 24
Number 27

Environ Sci Pollut Res (2017)

24:21530-21547
DOI 10.1007/s11356-017-9910-8

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer-
Verlag GmbH Germany. This e-offprint is
for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2017) 24:21530–21547
DOI 10.1007/s11356-017-9910-8
REVIEW ARTICLE
Microplastic pollution, a threat to marine ecosystem and human
health: a short review
Shivika Sharma 1 & Subhankar Chatterjee 1
Received: 10 April 2017 / Accepted: 3 August 2017 / Published online: 16 August 2017
# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017
Abstract Human populations are using oceans as their
household dustbins, and microplastic is one of the compo-
nents which are not only polluting shorelines but also fresh-
water bodies globally. Microplastics are generally referred to
particles with a size lower than 5 mm. These microplastics are
tiny plastic granules and used as scrubbers in cosmetics, hand
cleansers, air-blasting. These contaminants are omnipresent
within almost all marine environments at present. The dura-
bility of plastics makes it highly resistant to degradation and
through indiscriminate disposal they enter in the aquatic envi-
ronment. Today, it is an issue of increasing scientific concern
because these microparticles due to their small size are easily
accessible to a wide range of aquatic organisms and ultimately
transferred along food web. The chronic biological effects in
marine organisms results due to accumulation of microplastics
in their cells and tissues. The potential hazardous effects on
humans by alternate ingestion of microparticles can cause al-
teration in chromosomes which lead to infertility, obesity, and
cancer. Because of the recent threat of microplastics to marine
biota as well as on human health, it is important to control
excessive use of plastic additives and to introduce certain leg-
islations and policies to regulate the sources of plastic litter.
By setup various plastic recycling process or promoting
Responsible editor: Philippe Garrigues
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article
(doi:10.1007/s11356-017-9910-8) contains supplementary material,
which is available to authorized users.
* Subhankar Chatterjee
schatt.cuhp@gmail.com; subhankar@cuhimachal.ac.in
1
Bioremediation and Metabolomics Research Group, Department of
Chemistry and Chemical Sciences, School of Physical and Material
Sciences, Central University of Himachal Pradesh, TAB, Shahpur,
Kangra, Himachal Pradesh 176206, India
plastic awareness programmes through different social and
information media, we will be able to clean our sea dustbin
in future.
Keywords Microplastic . Microbeads . Marine biota . Food
web . Harmful effects . Environmental policies
Introduction
Plastics are synthetic polymers which also contain other
chemicals to improve performance (Costa et al. 2016), com-
monly derived from petrochemical sources and have high
ranges of molecular mass and plasticity. Plastics can be syn-
thesized from fossil fuels as well as from biomass of different
origin. The production process of the artificial and natural
polymers along with generation of macroplastics and
microplastics from synthetic polymers are illustrated in Fig.
1. In recent days, wide range of products are made up of plas-
tics due to their ease of manufacture, inertness (chemical, tem-
perature and light resistance as well), low cost, high strength/
weight ratio and resistance to water (Andrady and Neal 2009;
Cauwenberghe et al. 2015). These properties of plastic make
them a suitable candidate for their use in a wide spectrum of
biotechnological applications and more so in industrial organic
synthesis. For this reason, the steep rise in plastic production has
been seen during the last few decades and 288 million tonnes of
plastics were produced worldwide in 2013 alone (Plastics
Europe 2014). The durability of plastic makes it highly resistant
to degradation and therefore, disposing of plastic waste is a big
challenge (Sivan 2011). Recycling is one of the solutions but
unfortunately majority of the plastic debris ends up in landfill
which takes a long duration for its breakdown and decomposi-
tion (Cole et al. 2011). Plastics are entered into the aquatic
environment due to their unsystematic disposal and adversely
 Author's personal copy
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2017) 24:21530–21547
Fig. 1 Production process of the
artificial and natural polymers and
generation of macroplastics and
microplastics from synthetic
polymers
affect the marine biota. During the last few decades, this is an
issue of major concern as marine ecosystem has maximum con-
tribution towards global primary productivity (Gregory 2009).
Once enters in the environment, these plastic materials are
degraded by various means and lost their structural rigidity
(Fig. 2), (Browne et al. 2007). The extensive degradation of
plastics finally results into powdery fragments and
microscopic-sized plastics, called microplastics (Barnes et al.
2009). These are microparticles having dimensions ranging
between few micrometre to 500 μm (0.5 mm). Nowadays,
pharmaceuticals and cosmetic industries are using
microplastics in various daily used products and contaminat-
ing the environment via wastewater, ultimately transferred
along food web and impacting marine ecosystem after
reaching into the sea.
Microplastics
The problem of plastic debris (found in both on land and in sea)
has been the focus of environmental issue during the last few
years, but recently minute plastic particles termed as
Bmicroplastics^, have been emerged as hazardous pollutant
(Cole et al. 2011) due to their impact on marine animals and
human health. Microplastics are semi-synthetic plastic poly-
mers particles with a size lower than 5 mm (Browne et al.
2015). Different microscopy (optical, electron) and spectrosco-
py techniques (Raman, NMR, and FTIR) are used to monitor
microplastic suspensions from the environmental samples
21531
(Fig. 3), (Anthony and Andrady 2011). Microplastics are com-
monly used as scrubbers in cosmetics, hand cleansers and are
used in air-blasting (Thompson et al. 2004; Ryan et al. 2009).
The first evidence of microplastics fragments in the environment
was reported in 1970s (Carpenter and Smith 1972). After that
many scientific organizations around the globe have discovered
that microplastics are pervasive within the marine habitat and
impacting negatively on marine biota (Rands et al. 2010;
Sutherland et al. 2010). Two types of microplastics are found
in the environment viz. primary and secondary microplastics.
Primary microplastics
Primary microplastics are defined as microscopic plastic frag-
ments on the basis of size. On the basis of chemical composi-
tion, these primary microplastics are produced by the uninten-
tional release of intermediate plastic feedstock (i.e. pellets,
nurdles or mermaid tears) and occur as by-products of process-
es such as particulate emissions from industrial production,
maintenance of plastic or plastic-based materials, release of
dust and fibres, and deterioration of plastic products
(GESAMP 2015). The plastic pellets are the raw material for
manufacturing of plastic products (pellets to made plastic bags)
and microbeads in human health care commodities
(Magnusson et al. 2016). The plastic pellets comprises of poly-
ethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS) and poly-
olefin particles and are lipophilic in nature, i.e. they readily
adsorb harmful and toxic chemicals from surrounding marine
 Author's personal copy
21532 Environ Sci Pollut Res (2017) 24:21530–21547

Fig. 2 Environmental
degradation of plastics under
different conditions

water on its surface. These tiny synthetic primary microplastics polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydro-
are also used as abrasives in various industries (cosmetics, carbons (PAHs) and dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)
cleaning products, pharmaceuticals and air-blasting media). have been detected to bond on the surface of pellets collected
Many hydrophobic and aromatic compounds such as from marine environment (Cauwenberghe et al. 2015).

Fig. 3 Collection and

identification of microplastic
suspensions from the
environmental samples
 Author's personal copy
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2017) 24:21530–21547
These widespread distribution of industrial resin pellets (2–
5 mm) on the beaches of New Zealand, Canada, Bermuda,
Lebanon and Spain was reported where pellet concentrations
regularly exceeded 1000 pellets per meter of beach (Gregory
1978). The high concentrations of PCBs on polypropylene
pellets were reported on the beaches of Japan (Mato et al.
2001). The reports of presence of resin pellets from the
beaches of Singapore (Ng and Obbard 2006), India (Jayasiri
et al. 2013) and Belgium (Claessens et al. 2011) illustrated the
widespread distribution of these small microplastics.
These plastics are not only used in facial-cleansers, hand
cleansers and in cosmetics (Zitko and Hanlon 1991; Derraik
2002; Fendall and Sewell 2009) but also in drilling liquids
used for oil and gas exploration as well as in industrial abra-
sives (Gregory 1996; Derraik 2002; Sundt 2014). For remov-
ing rust and paint, polyester microplastics scrubbers of particle
size 0.25–1.7 mm are used (Browne et al. 2007). In cosmetic
products, main ingredients for compact face powder and skin
cleansers are polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP) gran-
ules (< 5 mm), polystyrene (PS) spheres (< 2 mm) and poly-
olefin particles (74–420 μm), respectively (Beach 1972).
When analyzing skin cleansers, rough textured spherical par-
ticles, threads and unevenly shaped microparticles of blue or
white colour made up of PE and PS were identified (Zitko and
Hanlon 1991; Gregory 1996; Lassen et al. 2015).
Microplastics can also be used as drug delivery system
(vector) and in dentist tooth polish, (Sundt et al. 2014;
Lassen et al. 2015). As end product microplastics from per-
sonal care, cosmetic and pharmaceutical sources can reach the
marine environment through wastewater.
Secondary microplastics
Secondary microplastics are defined as fragments of larger
plastic items that suffer fragmentation found both in marine
and terrestrial habitat (Thompson et al. 2004; Ryan et al.
2009). Weathering also causes the breakdown of large plastic
into tiny fragments. (Arthur et al. 2009). Another important
process is photodegradation by ultraviolet radiation from sun-
light which results in chemical bond cleavage of polymer
matrix by the oxidation process (Barnes et al. 2009).
Nanoplastics
Nanoplastic are minute plastic fragments with size < 100 nm
in at least two of its dimensions. The fragmentation or
weathering of larger plastic trash gives rise to micro- and
nanoplastics. The nanoplastics are produced during fragmen-
tation of synthetic fibers in case of washing of clothes and
during the deterioration of the plastic items such as expanded
polystyrene with an accelerated mechanical abrasion system
(Costa et al. 2016). The reduced size and high surface area-to-
volume ratio of these nanoplastics make them vulnerable to
21533
ingestion by different marine organisms such as corals, phy-
toplanktons and zooplanktons which are the prime consumers
of the food chain and also allow persistent organic pollutants
(POPs) to adsorb on their surface which increases their poten-
tial hazardous effects. Figure S1 shows the category, debris
size with examples of debris, composition of debris and group
of marine animals affected by the microplastics.
Environmental fate of microplastics
Land-based sources of microplastics and microbeads (tiny
plastic particles of size < 2 mm) waste contribute approximate-
ly 80% of the total plastic litter in the marine ecosystem (Fig.
4). The domestic, industrial and coastal activities are the prime
routes for the entry of the plastic litter in the marine habitat
(Derraik 2002). The formation of plastic products from the
industrial feedstock’s (Lechner et al. 2014; Sadri and
Thompson 2014), spilling of tiny plastic pellets and resin pow-
ders from air-blasting process (Claessens et al. 2011;
Zbyszewski et al. 2014), coastal tourism, commercial fishing,
and aqua industries are the other means of microplastic pollu-
tion in the environment. Marine environment is mostly con-
taminated by these activities and plastics generated from these
origins enter into the water bodies via wastewater, rivers or by
wind currents (Thompson 2006; Moore 2008). In this connec-
tion, ship-generated litter and careless handling of plastic fish-
ing gear are also the issue of concern (Ryan et al. 2009; EU
Commision 2011; Claessens et al. 2013; Desforges et al.
2014). The other sources of polymeric microplastics and
nanoplastics in marine habitat are cosmetic products, tooth-
pastes, hand cleansers and variety of cleaning products; which
enter the water channels via household and industrial drainage
systems as domestic effluents (Zitko and Hanlon 1991;
Gregory 1996; Fendall and Sewell 2009; Carr et al. 2016;
Duis and Coors 2016; Derraik 2002). Unlike macroplastics,
micro- and nanoplastics are not trapped into the wastewater
treatment plants (WWTP) and transported to sea via river with
wastewater effluent or with refuse site leachates. (Gregory
1996; Moore et al. 2002; Browne et al. 2007; Fendall and
Sewell 2009; Browne et al. 2010). Accelerated transfer of ter-
restrial microplastic debris from land to water bodies are also
governed by the natural processes like flash-flooding, wind
blows and hurricanes (Barnes et al. 2009). Microplastics and
microbeads are transferred to the atmosphere via disintegration
of agricultural PE foils, at the time of drying of clothes and
from contaminated sewage sludge when used as agriculture
fertilizer (Liebezeit and Liebezeit 2014). In addition to that,
arrival of 3D printing for fast prototyping, use of polymeric
nanoparticles and nanocapsules for drug delivery and thermal
cutting of PS foam are also responsible for release of
nanoplastics (~ 20–220 nm) and ultrafine polymer particles
(11.5–116 nm) in the atmosphere (Zhang et al. 2012;
Pohlmann et al. 2013; Stephens et al. 2013).
 Author's personal copy
21534
Fig. 4 Different sources of
microplastic from the
environment and effect on sea life
Distribution of microplastics in marine ecosystem
Distribution in water bodies around the globe
During the last few years, several global surveys have been
carried out to evaluate the presence of floating microplastics
and microbeads (Cozar et al. 2014; Eriksen et al. 2014;
Reisser et al. 2015) in different water bodies around the globe
(Table 1). Li et al. 2016 reported that floating microplastics and
microbeads are the major concern in the Northern Hemisphere
subtropical gyres, in the North Atlantic region. The plastic litter
from terrestrial and marine sources was routed to the subtropical
gyres and resulted a ‘special accumulation zones’ of micropar-
ticles (Lebreton et al. 2012) which in turn make gyres the
hotspots for microplastics (Lebreton et al. 2012; Eriksen et al.
2013a). The high concentrations of micro plastics were first
discovered in the North Pacific central gyre (Moore et al.
2001) and the term ‘ocean garbage patches’ was coined
(Kaiser 2010; Zhang et al. 2010). An estimated average of
26,898 particles km−2, ranging in size from 0.355 to over
4.750 mm was found in the South Pacific subtropical gyre
(Eriksen et al. 2013a). Approximately 22.290 tonnes of floating
plastic debris (> 33.000 particles km−2) was reported to accu-
mulate in the zone of North Pacific subtropical gyre which
include plastic fragments, pellets, PE, PP and thin plastic films
(Law et al. 2010). In the last 5 years, a total of five ocean gyres
have been reported (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, South
Indian, North Pacific and South Pacific) and almost 270.000
tons of microplastics was found around every five subtropical
gyres along the Bay of Bengal, costal Australia and the
Mediterranean Sea (Eriksen et al. 2014). Eriksen et al. 2013a
reported that natural processes like wind currents (boundary
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2017) 24:21530–21547
currents) around the shores of Indonesia and Ecuador were
responsible for the high occurrence of microplastics debris in
the South Pacific subtropical gyre. An additional garbage patch
was reported to occur in the zone of Barents Sea (van Sebille
et al. 2012). Microplastics ranging between 38 and 234 parti-
cles/m3 were found in the Arctic Ocean (Obbard et al. 2014)
and most concerning fact is that the value was twofold higher
than the value previously reported for microplastic abundance
in Pacific gyre (Goldstein et al. 2012). The high level of floating
plastics found in Antarctic and Arctic waters (Barnes et al.
2010; Lusher et al. 2015) and in the deep Arctic seafloor
(Bergmann and Klages 2012) intimidate us about the fact that
in recent age, polar areas are acting as an additional global sink
of plastics and this is indeed alarming!
The marine habitat pollution due to microplastics debris
depends on several environmental factors like wind currents,
coastline geology and also on different anthropogenic activi-
ties (Barnes et al. 2009). The abundance of plastic debris in the
Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea was reported to be high
due to both natural and human factors. The plastic hotspots are
generally formed in the coastal areas where industrial activity
is high. Approximately 100,000 microplastic particles per cu-
bic metre were reported in a harbor area close to a PE produc-
tion plant in Sweden (Noren and Naustvoll 2010). The phe-
nomenon of microplastics transfer into these water bodies may
be explicated by the principle of hydrodynamics, and the the-
ory of strong currents generation in the upper parts of canyons
(Moore et al. 2001). The accumulation of microplastics (be-
tween 1.000 and 3.000 tonnes) in the Mediterranean Sea is
due to careless human activities and the peculiar hydrodynam-
ic uniqueness of this semi-enclosed basin where outflow of
water mainly occurs through a subterranean water layer. The
 Author's personal copy
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2017) 24:21530–21547 21535

Table 1 Distribution of plastic debris in water bodies around the globe

Location Regions Water bodies Plastic type Plastic sizes Plastic (%) Reference

Atlantic Ocean North Sea Marine Macroplastics > 20 mm mesh 48.3 Galgani et al. (2000)
Channel East Marine Macroplastics > 20 mm mesh 84.6 Galgani et al. (2000)
Rio de la Plata River Macroplastics – 74 Acha et al. (2003)
Bay of Seine Marine Macroplastics > 20 mm mesh 89 Galgani et al. (2000)
Celtic Sea Marine Macroplastics > 20 mm mesh 29.5 Galgani et al. (2000)
Portuguese coast Marine Microplastics > 5 mm 43.8–91.7 Frias et al. (2014)
Gioana Estuary Microplastics 2.23 ± 1.65 mm – Lima et al. (2014)
estuary,
Brazil
Baltic Sea Baltic Sea Marine Macroplastics > 20 mm mesh 35.7 Galgani et al. (2000)
Pacific Ocean North Pacific Marine Macroplastics and 0.355 to > 4.76 mm 98 Moore et al. (2001)
Central Gyre microplastics
North Pacific River – – – Moore et al. (2001)
offshore,
surface
North Pacific, River – – – Moore et al. (2001)
inshore,
surface
Waters around Marine Macroplastics and 0.4 to 82.6 mm 80 Reisser et al. (2013)
Australia microplastics
The South Marine Macroplastics and 0.355 to > 4.75 mm 88.8 Eriksen et al. (2013a)
Pacific microplastics
subtropical
gyre
NE Pacific Marine Microplastics 64.8 to 5810 μm 75 Desforges et al. (2014)
Ocean
South Sea of Marine < 10 Lee et al. (2006)
Korea
Mediterranean Sea Adriatic Sea Marine Macroplastics > 20 mm mesh 69.5 Galgani et al. (2000)
East Corsica Marine 45.8 Galgani et al. 2000
Gulf of Lion Marine Macroplastics > 10 mm mesh 70.5 Galgani et al. (2000)
Greece Gulfs Marine 56 Koutsodendris et al. (2008)
The USA Laurentian Lake Macroplastics and 0.355–0.999 mm 90 Eriksen et al. (2013b)
Great Lakes microplastics (81%),
1.000–4.749 mm
(17%),
> 4.75 mm (2%)
Southwest Tamar Estuary Estuary Microplastics (82%) < 1 to > 5 mm 82 Sadri and Thompson (2014)
England and macroplastics (19%)

phenomenon of sedimentation is also an important factor for
the formation of accumulation zone. The region of low
turbulence/agitation coexist with the convergence zone of sea-
bed sediment movements will favor sedimentation process
(Jegou and Salomon 1991; Kanehiro et al. 1995).
The density of different plastic polymers found in the nat-
ural environment is shown in Table 2. Plastic polymers such
as PS, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polyvinyl chlo-
ride (PVC) having specific gravity > 1 are usually deposited in
the benthos whereas PE and PP with specific gravity < 1 floats
on the surface of water. In Australia, degradation of larger PP
and PE is the main source of microplastic in surface water
bodies (Reisser et al. 2013). The main cause of variations in
the density of different plastic debris in the marine environ-
ment is the formation of microbial biofilm on polymer surface,
which leads to colonization of polymer (by algae or inverte-
brates such as crabs, lobsters, sea urchins, worms star fish and
jelly fish) and ultimately increases the density of plastic debris
(Anthony and Andrady 2011).
It is critical to establish certain methodologies to interpret
the way abundance and composition of microplastics vary
with various factors such as location, depth, habitat and topog-
raphy. The behavior of microplastic in marine habitat should
be considered in a dynamic and changing perspective since
 Author's personal copy
21536
Table 2 Density range of plastic polymers
Polymer 3
Density (g/cm )
Polyethylene (PE) 0.93–0.98
Polystyrene (PS) 1.04–1.11
Polypropylene (PP) 0.89–0.91
Polyamide (PA) 1.13–1.5
Polyvinylchloride (PVC) 1.20–1.45
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) 1.38–1.39
Polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) 1.19–1.35
suspended particles can descend to sediments and remobilized
to water column by bioturbation, resuspension or by hydrody-
namic phenomena.
Distribution in beaches, sediments and shorelines
around the globe
Not only the water bodies but also the beaches are suffering
from microplastics pollution. The contamination of beaches
by plastic debris is summarized in Table 3. Fok and Cheung
2015 have reported that 25 beaches along the coastline of
Hong Kong were polluted with more than 90% microplastics
(0.315–5 mm) consisted with expanded PS (92%), fragments
(5%) and pellets (3%). The mean microplastics abundance
(5595 items m−2) is higher for beaches in Hong Kong than
the international averages, making the country hotspot of ma-
rine plastic pollution. At Belgian coast the average
microplastic concentration along the beach sediment was
found to be 92.8 particles kg−1 dry sediment, of which fibers
were the major candidates (82.1 particles kg−1). The fibers
mainly used in fishing nets, carpets and ropes comprises of
nylon, polyvinyl alcohol and PP (Claessens et al. 2011). Lee
et al. (2013) reported that abundance of microplastic in the
rainy season was higher because natural phenomenon like
heavy rainstorms, wind currents and hurricanes congregated
plastic debris on beaches. Ivar do Sul et al. (2009) found that
in the beaches of Fernando de Noronha, (Equatorial Western
Atlantic) which are divided into two parts, viz. leeward and
windward beaches, the concentration of plastic litter was
found higher on latter beaches compared to first one because
of surface currents, (Debrot et al. 1999; Ivar do Sul et al.
2009). The high ratio of microplastics litter was also reported
in non-industrial distant locations in Tonga, Rarotonga and
Fiji, the Pitcairn Islands, the Hawaiian and Chile Islands
(Benton 1995; Gregory 1999; Corcoran et al. 2009;
Hidalgo-Ruz and Thiel 2013). The high abundance of 7.49 g
and 68.83 items m−2 of plastic litter was estimated on sandy
beaches in Mumbai. The size fractionation analysis of plastics
showed that 41.85% microplastics (1–5 mm) were predomi-
nant on beaches which enhances the high risk to marine or-
ganisms due to possible ingestion and transfer along food web
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2017) 24:21530–21547
(Jayasiri et al. 2013). The beaches of Guanabara Bay on the
Brazilian coastline have been recognized as one of the most
polluted beaches due to the presence of high ratio of tiny
fragments (microplastics). Out of total plastic debris,
microplastics fragments contributed 56% of the total detected
debris, along with styrofoam (26.7%), pellets (9.9%) and fi-
bres (7.2%). The concentration of microplastic ranged from 12
to 1300 particles m−2 on these beaches (Carvalho and Neto
2016). In another study on the beaches of the island of Malta,
the high abundance of plastic production pellets (resin pellets)
were reported (> 1000 m−2 at the surface) on the backshores of
beaches (Tuner and Holmes 2011). In Singapore’s coastal en-
vironment, microplastic residues comprising of PE, PP and PS
fragments were detected in the surface and subsurface layer of
coastal water bodies (Ng and Obbard 2006). The presence of
microplastics (maximum 3 particles kg−1) in Singapore coast-
line is mainly due to establishment of industries and recrea-
tional practices as well as from shipping discharge.
The spatial patterns of microplastics distribution have been
described along an estuarine shoreline of English Channel in
the UK where high quantities of microplastic fragments were
dumped along the shoreline by the action of wind and water
currents (Browne et al. 2011). Deep-sea sediments collected
from Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea and Indian Ocean
found to contain microplastics in the form of fibers and abun-
dance was up to four orders of magnitude than in contaminat-
ed sea-surface water. This data providing additional evidence
for a large and hitherto unknown repository of microplastics in
these ocean’s sediments (Van Cauwenberghe et al. 2013;
Pham et al. 2014; Tubau et al. 2015).
Nocuous effect of microplastic pollution in marine
ecosystem
Microplastics are persistent in the maritime environment and
due to their small size, they are bioavailable to corals, zoo-
planktons, lobsters, worms, sea urchins, fish etc. (Browne
et al. 2008). When these nondegradable microplastics are
ingested by these marine organisms, they get bioaccumulated
in the food chain (Gregory 1996) and finally reach at higher
tropic levels (Carpenter and Smith 1972). Macroplastics,
microplastics and microbeads are harmful for marine organ-
isms and can cause serious diseases if the organisms ingested
these pollutants (Fendall and Sewell 2009) (Fig. 5). Around
the globe, microplastic litter has been detected in seabirds,
turtles, crustaceans and fish (Derraik 2002; Cole et al. 2011).
These marine organisms are affected by the microplastics due
to the clogging of intestinal tract, suppression of feeding due
to satiation, inhibition of gastric enzyme secretion, imbalance
of steroid hormone levels, delay in ovulation and infertility
(Azzarello and Vleet 1987; McCauley and Bjorndal 1999;
Wright et al. 2013). The ingestion and accumulation of plastic
debris in marine biota is illustrated in Table 4. The pernicious
 Author's personal copy
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2017) 24:21530–21547 21537

Table 3 Distribution of plastic debris in beach sediment

Location Plastic type Plastic sizes Occurence Reference

Mumbai, India Microplastics and < 5 to 100 mm Average abundance of 7.49 Jayasiri et al. (2013)
macroplastic g and 68.83 items m−2
Belgian coast Microplastics 38 to 1 mm Average 92.8 particles kg−1 Claessens et al. (2011)
dry sediment
San Diego, California Microplastics and < 5 to 50 mm 2453 individual plastic debris Van et al. (2012)
macroplastic
Hong Kong Microplastic 0.315 to < 5 mm Average abundance of 5595 Fok and Cheung (2015)
items m−2 and maximum
258,408 items m−2
Hawaii Microplastics and 1–2.8 mm Average weight of debris per McDermid and McMullen (2004)
macroplastic (43%), 2.8–4.75 mm sample was 23.38 g plastic
(48%), > 4.75 mm (9%)
Australia Microplastics and – Average abundance of 113 items Slavin et al. (2012)
macroplastic or 1.69 kg of debris per beach.
Western coast Microplastics 50 μm to 20 cm Average density of 185.1 items m−2 Martins and Sobral (2011)
of Portugal macroplastic
Malta Island Microplastics 1.9 to 5.6 mm > 1000 particles m−2 Tuner and Holmes (2011)
Singapore Microplastics and – Maximum 3 particles kg−1 Ng and Obbard (2006)
macroplastic
Brazilian Coast Microplastics and Average density of 82.1 items m−2 Carvalho and Neto (2016)
macroplastic

and recurring effects of microplastics ingestion have long-
standing impact and leads to reduction in food consumption
resulting in mortality in marine organisms (Derraik 2002;
Wright et al. 2013).
Transfer of microplastics to the food chain
Microplastics are ingested by an array of marine biota because
of their microsize as well as their presence in both pelagic and
benthic ecosystems (Betts 2008; Thompson et al. 2009). Not
only the problems with pollutant transference in food chain is
an issue of concern but the capacity of absorb pollutants from
water and pass to other trophic level by biomagnifications is
also a serious threat. Microplastics are composed of toxic ad-
ditives and monomers which have reasonably large area to
volume ratio and thus are effective in absorbing hydrophobic
pollutants from the water bodies (Mato et al. 2001; Thompson
et al. 2007). Very low concentrations of persistent organic
pollutants (POPs) which are found in marine habitat are taken
up by microplastics via the process of partitioning. The hydro-
phobicity factor of POPs is responsible for their enhanced
absorption in microplastic litter and upon ingestion by marine
biota; these hazardous contaminants (POPs) are transferred
along the marine food chain. Not only phytoplankton and
corals consume microplastics and microbeads and absorbing
their toxins, but also a wide range of marine animals getting
affected. The exposure of microplastics to harmful algae pro-
duces phycotoxins that could adversely affect indirectly to
human health and economy. Phycotoxins are mostly passed
within the toxic alga and transferred to the plankton or benthos
(bivalves or crustaceans) by feeding. For example, diarrethic
and paralytic shellfish poisonings (DSP and PSP) are caused
by algal toxins produced by the exposure of microplastics that
efficiently accumulate in shellfish and can transfer in food
web and indirectly cause hazardous symptoms in humans
(Teegarden and Cembella 1996; Mons et al. 1998; Campbell
et al. 2005). The algal toxins can accumulate in marine food
webs and can pass from one trophic level to the next.
Following are the species wise discussion about the effect of
microplastics pollution in marine habitat.
Corals
The geologic formations of coral reefs provide coastal protec-
tion from the ocean’s destructive forces and have the highest
biological diversity in the marine environment (Yap 2012).
They provide habitat to one-third of all marine fish species
and thousands of other organisms and cover 0.2% of the
ocean’s area (Barnette 2001). Corals get energy from photo-
synthesis by symbiotic algae within their tissues, but they also
nourish on a variety of other food including phytoplankton,
zooplankton and other small organisms that live in seawater.
The microplastics (2–5 mm) in the marine environment can be
ingested by aquatic life forms and these amphipods, copepods,
phytoplankton and zooplankton are the main food source of
corals. Therefore microplastic contamination directly affects
the health of corals as these materials cannot be digested by
the corals and accumulated within their digestive systems
(Ferrier-Pages et al. 2003). Accumulated plastic debris can
entrap branching species of hard corals, make them
 Author's personal copy
21538
Fig. 5 Negative effects of microplastic on animal health
fragmented and habitat heterogeneity has been reduced, which
in turn support macroalgal colonization. (UNEP 2009). The
first report on microplastic ingestion in coral reef in the area
near Australia’s Great Barrier Reef (GRE, 18°31′S 146° 23′E)
revealed that microplastics were present in low concentrations
in marine locations. A feeding trial experiment on corals
showed that corals mistake microplastics as their food and
can consume up to ~ 50 μg cm−2 h−1 plastic; the rates which
is similar to their ingestion of plankton and species like
Artemia nauplii. After ingestion of high concentration of
microplastics by corals, mesenterial tissue within the coral
gut cavity were found to be the most affected area which
ultimately damage the corals health (Hall et al. 2015).
Plankton
The photosynthetic phytoplankton fixes carbon from inor-
ganic CO2 and energy from sunlight. Microplastics pene-
trate cell walls and membranes of planktons and reduce
chlorophyll concentrations in the green algae (Nerland
et al. 2014). The heterotrophic plankton ciliates uptake
microplastics through phagocytosis (Laist 1987). The zoo-
plankton consists of a group of free-floating heterotrophic
invertebrates and have significant role in marine ecosys-
tems because this group of marine organisms serve as key
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2017) 24:21530–21547
members of the marine food chain (Cozar et al. 2014). The
omnipresent nature of microplastic in the water column
invoked interactions between these tiny plastic fragments
and zooplankton and the effects of such interactions are of
great importance because zooplankton provides a key
transfer of energy to the higher trophic levels. Therefore it
is possible that accumulated pollutants may pass to the
higher trophic levels through this mechanism which ulti-
mately results great threat to the health of the marine eco-
system. Zooplankton covers large number of species which
have different life cycle stages and exhibit different range
of feeding mechanisms (Wirtz 2012). Laboratory experi-
ments revealed that zooplankton potentially absorbs tiny
plastic latex beads by filter feeding mode (Frost 1977;
Hart 1991; Wilson 1973). In a recent study, the ingestion
of microplastics (< 5 mm) in 15 different zooplankton taxa
ranging from copepods to jellyfish was examined (Cole
et al. 2013). In Baltic Sea, different species of zooplanktons
which includes copepods, shrimps, cladocerans, worms,
ciliates and polychaete larvae ingested microplastics
(Setala et al. 2014). The highest proportion of microplastics
ingestion in zooplankton species was found for pelagic
polychaete larvae of the genus Marenzelleria. The ingested
microparticles could either pass through the gut or block or
accumulate in the digestive tract of zooplanktons leading to
Table 4 Plastic ingestion in aquatic animals

Marine organisms Location Plastic type Plastic sizes Occurrence (%) Reference

Fish
Whiting, blue whiting, Atlantic horse English Channel Macroplastics and microplastics 0.13 to 14.3 mm 36.5 Lusher et al. (2013)
mackerel, poor cod, John Dory, red
gurnard, dragonet, red band fish, solenette
and thick back sole
Cololabis saira, Hygophum reinhardtii, North Pacific Microplastics 1 to 2.79 mm 35 Boerger et al. (2010)
Loweina interrupta, Myctophum
aurolaternatum, Symbolophorus
californiensis
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2017) 24:21530–21547

Anchovy (Stolephorus commersonnii) Alappuzha, India Microplastics 1.14 to 2.5 mm 37.5 Kripa et al. (2014)
Herring, gray gurnard, whiting, horse North Sea Microplastics 0.04 to 4.8 mm 2.6 Foekema et al. (2013)
mackerel, haddock, atlantic mackerel, and cod
Lampris sp. North Pacific Macroplastics and microplastics 49.1 mm 29 Choy and Drazen (2013)
Turtle
Caretta caretta Adriatic Sea Macroplastics and microplastics – 35.2 Lazar and Gracan (2011)
Mediterranean Sea Macroplastics and microplastics 37 Revelles et al. (2007)
Northern Pacific Macroplastics and microplastics 35 Parker et al. (2005)
Chelonia mydas Brazilian coast 70 Santos et al. (2015)
Ubatuba, Macroplastics and microplastics (76%) 0–5 cm, 45 Da Silva Mendes et al. (2015)
Brazilian coast (23%) 5–10
cm, (1%) N10
cm
South west Altantic Macroplastics and microplastics 0.5–3.0 cm 90 Carman et al. (2014)
Author's personal copy

Marine invertebrates
Mytilus edulis North Sea, Germany Microplastics 5 to 25 μm Van Cauwenberghe and Janssen (2014)
Brown shrimp (Crangon crangon) Belgium Microplastic 300 to1000 μm Devriese et al. (2014)
Euphausia pacifica Northeast Pacific Ocean Microplastic 816.1 ± 107.7 μm 5.8 Desforges et al. (2015)
Neocalanus cristatus Northeast Pacific Ocean Microplastic 555.5 ± 148.7 μm 2.6 Desforges et al. (2015)
Zooplankton Western Microplastic 7.3 to 30.6 μm 87 Cole et al. (2013)
English
Channel
Portuguese
coastal waters
Franciscana dolphins (Pontoporia blainvillei) Northern coast of Argentina Macroplastic 0.2 to 11.4 cm 28.1 Denuncio et al. (2011)
Mesoplodon mirus North and west coast of Ireland Microplastic and macroplastic 0.3 mm–7.1 cm 85 Lusher et al. (2015)
21539
 Author's personal copy
21540
disturbed feeding and digestion. Cole et al. (2013) reported
that the ingestion of polystyrene microplastic by zooplank-
ton was retained in the gut up to 7 days whereas for shore
crab Carcinus maenus, the time was up to 14 days (Watts
et al. 2014). In some other cases, microplastics particles
were translocated from the gut to other internal organs of
t h e z o o p l a n k t o n o rg a n i s m . I t w a s r e p o r t e d t h a t
microplastics were transferred from the gut of Mytilus
edulis into its circulatory system, where they remained for
up to 48 days, without having a significant biological effect
upon the individual (Browne et al. 2008). The microplastics
are egested by zooplankton species in the form of faecal
pellets and this excreted material is then available to pelag-
ic and benthic marine organisms as well as in the water
column. These faecal materials are sinks out of the water
column to the seafloor which make their availability in the
benthos (Setala et al. 2014).
Benthic organisms
The benthic community is an essential constituent of marine
ecosystem and comprises of approximately 98% of overall
marine biota. The benthic invertebrates such as oysters, blue
mussels, barnacles and lobsters have all been reported to in-
gest microplastics (Nerland et al. 2014). Suspension-feeders
like blue mussels (bivalves) have been found to ingest
microplastics from sea water. A study on farmed blue mussels
from Germany near North Sea was found that this species
ingested microplastics of around 0.36 ± 0.07 particles g−1
(wet weight) while oysters from Brittany, France near North
Atlantic Ocean also showed the presence of microplastics of
0.47 ± 0.16 particles g−1 (wet weight) in their body (van
Cauwenberghe and Janssen 2014). The benthic barnacles
from the North Pacific who are suspension feeders also
contained 33.5% of microplastic particles (Goldstein and
Goodwin 2013). In the Clyde Bay (West coast of Scotland),
presence of microplastics (< 5 mm) in the form of tangled ball
in the gut region of lobsters (Nephrops norvegicus) was evi-
dent (Murray and Cowie 2011). It is predicted that benthic
fauna such as crustacean, polychaetes and bivalves when
served as a food source for omnivorous lobsters; microplastic
was then consumed by this benthic organism via feeding pro-
cess (Murray and Cowie 2011). In laboratory conditions, sea
urchin larvae have been found to absorb microplastic particles
of 10–40 μM size range, similar to the size of their prey serv-
ing as their food. The benthic worm Arenicola marina com-
prises of high lipid content and for this reason, they are very
important member in marine food chains. Unfortunately dur-
ing feeding this worm also indirectly ingests high ratio of
microplastics (Wright et al. 2013). Experimental studies have
shown that extensive and chronic exposure of polystyrene
microplastic on A. marina results reduction in feeding aptitude
as well as reduction in weight (Besseling et al. 2013).
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2017) 24:21530–21547
Fish
The presence of microplastic was reported in approximately
30% of the individual fish species (Possatto et al. 2011;
Lusher et al. 2013). The presence of plastic polymers such
as PS, polyamide, polyester and low-density polyethylene
(LDPE) were reported in pelagic feeding fish species in
English Channel (Lusher et al. 2013). The long-term study
of Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes) showed that even mod-
erate concentrations of microplastics (8 ngL−1 of PE of size
< 0.5 mm) in sea (San Diego Bay, CA) can affect fish in a sub-
lethal manner (Nerland et al. 2014). The bottom-feeding fish
(Gerreidae) from a tropical estuary in northeast Brazil were
reported to be contaminated with microplastics, and their
stomach was mostly affected (Ramos et al. 2012). In the
North Pacific Central Gyre, presence of plastic fragments
was reported in planktivorous fish. The primary route of ex-
posure of microplastics is the direct ingestion as food or in-
gestion by mistake for prey items. The accumulation of
microplastics (< 5 mm) in the gut of fish results starvation
and malnourishment of fish and ultimately leading to death
(Boerger et al. 2010). It was reported that larger-sized
microplastic beads (5 mm) stayed longer time in the fish’s
gut in comparison to smaller beads (2 mm) (Dos Santos and
Jobling 1992). These results entail that larger-sized
microplastic beads are more harmful for the marine fish com-
munity as compare to smaller fragments; because smaller
microplastics can be excreted via natural faeces. Apart from
fish, ingestion of different type of microplastics was studied in
Norway lobster, where 83% of the lobsters were found to be
infected with microfibers (Murray and Cowie 2011).
Seabirds
Sea birds such as the albatross, shearwaters, petrels and north-
ern fulmar fed at the sea surface and the ingested microplastic
gets accumulated in their stomach. In the sea birds, approxi-
mately 30–35% of the plastics were found in the form of
industrial pellets (Ryan 1987; Robards et al. 1995; Blight
and Burger 1997). The birds from the south Atlantic region
showed presence of plastic pellets in their digestive system,
and the plastic was excreted in the form of faeces (Ryan 2008).
In the similar manner, the presence of tiny plastic fragments
was seen in digestive system of short-tailed shearwater
(Puffinus tenuirostris) originated from the North Sea
(Vlietstra and Parga 2002). Regurgitation is the process by
which seabirds are able to remove microplastics from their
digestive tracts and same has been reported for Larus
glaucescens (Lindborg et al. 2012). Kuhn and van Franeker
(2012), reported that in comparison to adult northern fulmars
(Fulmarus glacialis) younger one get exposed with more
microplastic during the feeding process which ultimately ac-
cumulated in their intestines. Plastic ingestion negatively
 Author's personal copy
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2017) 24:21530–21547
Fig. 6 An overall representation of the environmental fate of microplastic
affects the feeding habits of the seabirds leading to the starva-
tion and loss of fitness (Tanaka et al. 2013).
Large marine animals (marine mammals and turtles)
The hazardous effects of microplastic litter have been reported
for many large marine organisms viz. sea turtles, whales, har-
bour seals and polar bears (Derraik 2002). In Brazil, approx-
imately 60.5% of the sea turtles were found to be infected by
microplastics accumulation in their digestive track (Nerland
et al. 2014). Another marine mammal, Baleen whales were
highly prone to microplastic contamination as this class of
marine organisms were involved in filtering organisms that
filter seawater and that facilitate the entry of microplastics in
their system (Fossi et al. 2012). Also due to high fat and lipid
content, whales are highly potential to ingest and accumulate
microplastics in stomach and intestine. Recently there are nu-
merous reports of death of stranded whales having a lot of
microplastics litter in their gut. The ingestion of microplastics
was recorded in the stomach and intestine of harbour seals
(Phoca vitulina) (Bravo Rebolledo et al. 2013). Microplastic
particles with a diameter of 1 mm were recorded in the
Hooker’s sea lions and scat of fur seals (Goldsworthy et al.
1997; McMahon et al. 1999). It is predicted that polar bears
are also susceptible to microplastics ingestion but yet no
21541
reports have been published on this topic. An overall repre-
sentation of the environmental fate of microplastics has been
depicted in Fig. 6.
Harmful effect on human health
The general human population may be exposed to
microplastics from different sources such as primary
microplastics in cosmetics, toothpastes, scrubs and hand
washes. Apart from toxicity effects of microplastics, hazard-
ous substances such as phthalates or PCBs within the
microplastics or other pollutant adsorbed to the surface of
microplastics may contribute to the dietary exposure of
humans (Lassen et al. 2015). The potential buildup of
microplastics in seafood also has consequences for the health
of human consumers. Microplastics have been shown to be
ingested by several commercial sea species such as mussel,
oyster, crab, sea cucumber and fish and transferred along food
web. Unfortunately, no concrete data are available for the
chemical composition, particle size, shape or concentration
of microplastics particles in food (BfR 2015). The health haz-
ards resulting from the use of face washes, hand cleansers,
toothpastes and dental care products containing PE
microplastic particles has been evaluated by the German
Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR 2015). They
 Author's personal copy
21542
Table 5 Policies adopted by
various organizations Country State
USA California
USA San Francisco
Ireland
USA
USA California
Canada
a
Data collected from Plastic Pollution Coalition
concluded that microplastic particles used in face pack peel-
ings and shower products are larger than 1 μm, and prolonged
use of these products lead to absorption of PE and PP particles
in the tissues which ultimately results skin damage.
Microplastics and microbeads particles from toothpaste can
unconsciously be swallowed and are absorbed via the gastro-
intestinal tract (Lassen et al. 2015). The alternate ingestion of
microparticles can cause alteration in chromosomes which
lead to infertility, obesity and cancer (GESAMP 2015). In case
of women, estrogenic mimicking chemicals can cause breast
cancer. It is evident that humans are exposed to microplastics
through their diet and the high ratio of microplastic pollutants
in seafood creates a major risk to food safety (Van
Cauwenberghe and Janssen 2014). Therefore, a detail analysis
and assessment of the potential health risk of microplastics
coming from a range of foods across the total diet should be
carried out to evaluate the causative risk of contaminated ma-
rine food on human health.
Policies adopted by various organizations worldwide
All over the world, a referendum on the plastic bag is becom-
ing more and more popular. An all-out banned on single-use
plastic bags was imposed by California recently by passing
Prop 67 bill (Plastic Pollution Coalition 2016a). In the similar
terms, Scotland’s plastic bag ban policy prevented approxi-
mately around 650 million bags from entering the waste
stream (Plastic Pollution Coalition 2016b). In Ireland, in order
to control plastic bags, Lowenthal’s bill was introduced and
according to which a minimum fine of 10-cent fee was
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2017) 24:21530–21547
Policya
California is the first state in the USA to ban single-use
plastic shopping bags by passing Prop 67 bill.
San Francisco imposed a complete ban on the sale
of plastic water bottles.
Lowenthal’s bill was introduced according to which a
minimum 10-cent fee was charged on each bag provided
by retailers to carry out groceries and other purchased items
and 4 cents per bag if they have a qualifying recycling program.
The Senate votes unanimously to pass H.R. 1321 ‘Microbead-Free
Waters Act of 2015’. This bill amends the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act to ban rinse-off cosmetics that contain intentionally
added plastic microbeads beginning on January 1, 2018 and to ban
manufacturing of these cosmetics beginning on July 1, 2017.
‘Assembly Bill 888’ was introduced which sets up the strongest
protections against the use of these harmful and toxic microplastic
beads. This legislation ensures that personal care products will be
formulated with environmentally safe alternatives to protect our
waterways and oceans.
Canadian Environmental Protection Act was introduced to ban the
use of microbeads in the cosmetic products
charged on plastic shopping bag and a fine of 4 cents was
employed on plastic bag that can be recycled (Table 5). The
funds collected by the fine were then transferred to the Land
and Water Conservation Fund for the environment protection
and conservation project (Plastic Pollution Coalition 2016a).
Due to the high tax on bags, 90% reduction on the use of
plastic bags was observed. The local governments of the
USA and other developed countries of the world have formu-
lated many rules and implemented fines for the use of plastic
bags. Because of these steps almost 60–90% reduction in the
usage of plastic bags has been noticed (Plastic Pollution
Coalition 2016a). Microbeads are inert PE and PP particles
which are used in face washes and tooth paste constitute a
significant amount of marine pollution. To check this pollu-
tion, many European countries have imposed an all-out ban on
the products containing microbeads. In the USA, President
Barack Obama had signed the ‘Microbead-Free Waters Act
of 2015’ which was approved unanimously by the House
Energy and Commerce Committee to minimize microbeads
pollution in waterways (Pallone 2015). The federal adminis-
tration of different countries such as Canada, Austria,
Australia, Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Germany
and Sweden are also imposing an all-out ban for the use of
microbeads in personal care products (Perschbacher 2016). In
California, complete ban was imposed on use of microplastic
particle abrasives ‘microbeads’, in different domestic products
such as facial scrubs, washing detergents, scrubs, creams and
toothpaste. Not only banning the microplastic in personal care
products, California assembly also passed ‘Assembly Bill
888’ which sets up the tough rules and regulations against
 Author's personal copy
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2017) 24:21530–21547
the use of toxic microplastic beads and put strong emphasis on
the use of natural and eco-friendly alternatives in the cosmetic
products to protect our ecosystem (Plastic Pollution Coalition
2015). San Francisco becomes the first American state to ban
plastic water bottles (Plastic Pollution Coalition 2016c). The
microbeads are in the list of toxic substances formulated by
the Canadian Environmental Protection Act’s and there is
complete ban on the use of this hazardous pollutant. They also
constituted regulations that would ban the manufacture, im-
port and export of personal care products containing
microbeads (The Globe and Mail Newspaper 2016).
Different national and international social organizations have
pleaded the customers and industries to completely exclude
the use of microbeads in the personal care products (Plastic
Soup Foundation 2016). The series of supermarket companies
such as Johnson & Johnson, Livon and L’Oréal have commit-
ted to phase out these microplastics and microbeads from their
personal care products (Copeland 2015).
Conclusions and future direction
Plastic pollution in the marine ecosystem is in alarming con-
dition because they are omnipresent in the natural surround-
ings, has harmful effects on marine biota and transferred along
food web, which is an issue of concern. There is a pressing
need to take severe measures to address the problem at inter-
national, national and local levels. Developing countries like
India, Vietnam, Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Thailand,
Korea, China, Sri Lanka and Philippines are main contributors
of plastic pollution in the marine atmosphere. Many develop-
ing countries have not formulated rules and regulations to
control microplastic pollution. Therefore, it is recommended
that local governments should introduce strong legislative
rules and should encourage research to monitor the long-
term effects of plastic debris in the environment. New scien-
tific data on microplastics pollution should be formulated for
conservation management, for normative guidelines and
strengthen the basis for educational campaigns.
The public awareness regarding microplastic pollution is
very significant because this will govern their behaviour to-
wards plastic consumption and most importantly the negative
effects of the plastic pollution are still unrecognizable by the
general population. Different campaigns and programmes
should be adopted which may play an important role in public
awareness against the long-term and chronic effects of plastics
pollution. Several socially active international organisations,
such as International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) should ar-
range certain campaigns on a global scale to minimize
microplastics pollution.
Finally, plastics manufacturing industries should take ac-
countability and take care of their end-of-life products.
21543
Government should set ‘zero tolerance’ for this issue and
compel the industries to use biodegradable materials such as
starch instead of nondegradable material. This biodegradable
material will then be decomposed by microorganisms (bacte-
ria/fungi) and ultimately reducing the lifetime of these plastics
in the surroundings. In industries, the process of recycling or
upgrading of plastic litter should be encouraged. Recently, the
tertiary recycling of plastic has emerged as one of the advance
techniques where plastic materials are converted into smaller
fragments which further can used as feedstock for the manu-
facture of new petrochemicals. More reviews on this topic
should be published and detail research on this topic should
be carried out so that people can have the awareness related to
this future threat.
Acknowledgments SS, gratefully acknowledge SERB-DST, Govt. of
India for the financial support (PDF/2016/000818). Authors thank Dr.
Shubhra Majumder, CCC, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
for carefully reading the manuscript.
References
Acha E, Hermes W, Mianzan A, Iribarne C, Domingo A, Gagliardini C,
Carlos Lasta A, Pedro Daleo D (2003) The role of the Rio de la Plata
bottom salinity front in accumulating debris. Mar Pollut Bull 46:
197–202
Andrady AL, Neal MA (2009) Applications and societal benefits of plas-
tics. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 364:1977–1984
Anthony L, Andrady (2011) Microplastics in the marine environment.
Mar Pollut Bull 62:1596–1605
Arthur C, Baker J, Bamford H (2009) Proceedings of the international
research workshop on the occurrence, effects and fate of micro-
plastic marine debris, Sept 9-11, 2008. NOAA technical memoran-
dum NOS-OR&R-30
Azzarello MY, Vleet ES (1987) Marine birds and plastic pollution. Mar
Ecol Prog Ser 37:295–303
Barnes DKA, Galgani F, Thompson RC, Barlaz M (2009) Accumulation
and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philos
Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 364:1985–1998
Barnes DKA, Walters A, Gonçalves L (2010) Macroplastics at sea around
Antarctica. Mar Environ Res 70:250–252
Barnette MC (2001) A review of the fishing gear utilized within the south-
east region and their potential impacts on essential fish habitat. US
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast
Regional Office NOAATechnical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-449
Beach WJ (1972) Skin cleaner. Inventor; Sugar Beet Products Co, assign-
ee. United States patent No. US 3,645,904. 29 Feb 1972
Benton TG (1995) From castaways to throwaways: marine litter in the
Pitcairn Islands. Biol J Linn Soc 56:415–422
Bergmann M, Klages M (2012) Increase of litter at the Arctic deep-sea
observatory Hausgarten. Mar Pollut Bull 64:2734–2741
Besseling E, Wegner A, Foekema EM, van den Heuvel-Greve MJ,
Koelmans AA (2013) Effects of microplastic on fitness and PCB
bioaccumulation by the lugworm Arenicola marina (L.) Environ Sci
Technol 47:593–600
Betts K (2008) Why small plastic particles may pose a big problem in the
oceans. Environ Sci Technol 42:8995
BfR (2015) Microplastic Particles in Food. BfR Opinion No. 013/2015 of
30 April 2015. English summary of the report Mikroplastikpartikel
 Author's personal copy
21544
in Lebensmitteln, Stellungnahme Nr. 013/2015 des BfR vom 30.
April 2015. German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment
Blight LK, Burger AE (1997) Occurrence of plastic particles in seabirds
from the eastern North Pacific. Mar Pollut Bull 34:323–325
Boerger CM, Lattin GL, Moore S, Moore CJ (2010) Plastic ingestion by
planktivorous fishes in the North Pacific Central Gyre. Mar Pollut
Bull 60:2275–2778
Bravo Rebolledo EL, van Franeker JA, Jansen OE, Brasseur SM (2013)
Plastic ingestion by harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) in
The Netherlands. Mar Pollut Bull 67:200–202
Browne MA, Galloway T, Thompson R (2007) Microplastic—an emerg-
ing contaminant of potential concern? Integr Environ Assess Manag
3:559–561
Browne MA, Dissanayake A, Galloway TS, Lowe DM, Thompson RC
(2008) Ingested microscopic plastic translocates to the circulatory
system of the mussel, Mytilus edulis. Environ Sci Technol 42:5026–
5031
Browne J, Harper J, Humphrey N (2010) Cirque glacier sensitivity to 21st
century warming: Sperry Glacier, Rocky Mountains, USA. Glob
Planet Chang. doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2010.09.001
Browne MA, Crump P, Niven SJ, Teuten E, Tonkin A, Galloway TS,
Thompson RC (2011) Accumulation of microplastic on shorelines
worldwide: sources and sinks. Environ Sci Technol 45:9175–9179
Browne MA, Underwood AJ, Chapman MG, Williams R, Thompson
RC, van Franeker JA (2015) Linking effects of anthropogenic debris
to ecological impacts. Proc Biol Sci 282:2929–2935
Campbell RG, Teegarden GJ, Cembella AD, Durbin EG (2005)
Zooplankton grazing impacts on Alexandrium spp. in the nearshore
environment of the Gulf of Maine. Deep-Sea Res 52:2817–2833
Carman VG, Acha EM, Maxwell SM, Albareda D, Campagna C,
Mianzan H (2014) Young green turtles, Chelonia mydas, exposed
to plastic in a frontal area of the SWAtlantic. Mar Pollut Bull 78:56–
62
Carpenter EJ, Smith K (1972) Plastics on the Sargasso Sea surface.
Science 175:1240–1241
Carr SA, Liu J, Tesoro AG (2016) Transport and fate of microplastic
particles in wastewater treatment plants. Water Res 91:174–182
Carvalho DG, Neto JAB (2016) Microplastic pollution of the beaches of
Guanabara Bay, Southeast Brazil. Ocean Coast Manag 128:10–17
Cauwenberghe LV, Devriese L, Galgani F, Robbens J, Janssen CR (2015)
Microplastics in sediments: a review of techniques, occurrence and
effects. Mar Environ Res 111:5–17
Choy CA, Drazen JC (2013) Plastic for dinner? Observations of frequent
debris ingestion by pelagic predatory fishes from the central North
Pacific. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 485:155–163
Claessens M, De Meester S, Van Landuyt L, De Clerck K, Janssed RC
(2011) Occurence and distribution of microplastics in marine sedi-
ments along the Belgian coast. Mar Pollut Bull 62:2199–2204
Claessens M, Van Cauwenberghe L, Vandegehuchte MB, Janssen CR
(2013) New techniques for the detection of microplastics in sedi-
ments and field collected organisms. Mar Pollut Bull 70:227–233
Cole M, Lindeque P, Fileman E, Halsban C, Goodhead R, Moger J,
Galloway TS (2013) Microplastic ingestion by zooplankton.
Environ Sci Technol 47:6646–6655
Cole M, Lindeque P, Halsband C, Galloway TS (2011) Microplastics as
contaminants in the marine environment: a review. Mar Pollut Bull
62:2588–2597
Copeland C (2015) Microbeads: an emerging water quality issue.
Retrieved from https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IN10319
Corcoran PL, Beisinger MC, Grifi M (2009) Plastic and beaches: a
degrading relationship. Mar Pollut Bull 58:80–84
Costa JP, Santos PSM, Duarte AC, Rocha-Santos T (2016) (Nano) plas-
tics in the environment—sources, fates and effects. Sci Total
Environ 567:15–26
Cozar A, Echevarria F, González-Gordillo JI, Irigoien X, Ubeda B,
Hernandez-Leon S, Palma AT, Navarro S, Garcia-de-Lomas J,
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2017) 24:21530–21547
Ruiz A, Fernandez-depuelles ML, Duarte CM (2014) Plastic debris
in the open ocean. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111:10239–10244
Da Silva Mendes S, de Carvalho RH, de Faria AF, de Sousa BM (2015)
Marine debris ingestion by Chelonia mydas (Testudines:
Cheloniidae) on the Brazilian coast. Mar Pollut Bull 92:8–10
Debrot AO, Tiel AB, Bradshaw JE (1999) Beach debris in Curaçao. Mar
Pollut Bull 38:795–801
Denuncio P, Bastida R, Dassis M, Giardino G, Gerpe M, Rodriguez D
(2011) Plastic ingestion plastic ingestion in Franciscana dolphins,
Pontoporia blainvillei from Argentina. Mar Pollut Bull 62:1836–
1841
Derraik JGB (2002) The pollution of the marine environment by plastic
debris: a review. Mar Pollut Bull 44:842–852
Desforges JPW, Galbraith M, Dangerfield N, Ross PS (2014) Widespread
distribution of microplastics in subsurface seawater in the NE
Pacific ocean. Mar Pollut Bull 79:94–99
Desforges JPW, Galbraith M, Ross PS (2015) Ingestion of microplastics
by zooplankton in the Northeast Pacific Ocean. Arch Environ
Contam Toxicol 69:320–330
Devriese L, Vandendriessche S, Theetaert H, Vandermeersch G, Hostens
K, Robbens J (2014) Occurrence of synthetic fibres in brown shrimp
on the Belgian part of the North Sea. Platform presentation.
International workshop on fate and impact of microplastics in ma-
rine ecosystems (MICRO2014) Plouzane, France, 13-15 January
2014
Dos Santos J, Jobling M (1992) A model to describe gastric evacuation in
cod (Gadus morhua L.) fed natural prey. ICES J Mar Sci 49:145–
154
Duis K, Coors A (2016) Microplastics in the aquatic and terrestrial envi-
ronment: sources (with a specific focus on personal care products),
fate and effects. Environ Sci Eur 28:1–25
Eriksen M, Laurent CML, Henry SC, Thiel M, Moore CJ, Borerro JC,
Galgani F, Ryan PG, Reisser J (2014) Plastic pollution in the
World’s oceans: more than 5 trillion plastic pieces weighing over
250,000 tons afloat at sea. PLoS One. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.
0111913
Eriksen M, Maximenko N, Thiel M, Cummins A, Lattin G, Wilson S,
Hafner J, Zellers A, Rifman S (2013b) Plastic pollution in the South
Pacific subtropical gyre. Mar Pollut Bull 68:71–76
Eriksen M, Mason S, Wilson S, Box C, Zellers A, Edwards W, Farley H,
Amato S (2013a) Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the
Laurentian Great Lakes. Mar Pollut Bull 77:177–182
EU Commision (2011) In: Commision E (ed) Plastic waste: ecological
and human health impacts. Science for Environment Policy, Europe
Fendall LS, Sewell MA (2009) Contributing to marine pollution by wash-
ing your face: microplastics in facial cleansers. Mar Pollut Bull 58:
1225–1228
Ferrier-Pages C, Witting J, Tambutte E, Sebens KP (2003) Effect of
natural zooplankton feeding on the tissue and skeletal growth of
the scleractinian coral Stylophora pistillata. Coral Reefs 22:229–240
Foekema EM, de Gruitjer C, Mergia MT, van Franeker JA, Murk AT,
Koelmans AA (2013) Plastic in North Sea fish. Environ Sci Technol
47:8818–8824
Fok L, Cheung PK (2015) Hong Kong at the Pearl River estuary: a
hotspot of microplastic pollution. Mar Pollut Bull 99:112–118
Fossi MC, Panti C, Guerranti C, Coppola D, Giannetti M, Marsili L,
Minutoli R (2012) Are baleen whales exposed to the threat of
microplastics? A case study of the Mediterranean fin whale
(Balaenoptera physalus). Mar Pollut Bull 64:2374–2379
Frias JPGL, Otero V, Sobral P (2014) Evidence of microplastics in sam-
ples of zooplankton from Portuguese coastal waters. Mar Environ
Res 95:89–95
Frost BW (1977) Feeding behavior of Calanus pacificus in mixtures of
food particles. Limnol Oceanogr 22:472–491
Galgani F et al (2000) Litter on the sea floor along European coasts. Mar
Pollut Bull 40:516–527
 Author's personal copy
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2017) 24:21530–21547
GESAMP (2015). Sources, fate and effects of microplastics in the marine
environment: a global assessment. In: Kershaw PJ (ed) (IMO/FAO/
UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNDP Joint
Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine
Environmental Protection). Rep Stud GESAMP No. 90, pp 96
Goldstein M, Goodwin D (2013) Gooseneck barnacles (Lepas spp.) in-
gest microplastic debris in the North Pacific subtropical gyre. Peer J.
doi:10.7717/peerj.184
Goldstein MC, Rosenberg M, Cheng L (2012) Increased oceanic
microplastic debris enhances oviposition in an endemic pelagic in-
sect. Biol Lett 8:817–820
Goldsworthy SD, Hindell MA, Crowley HM (1997) Diet and diving
behaviour of sympatric fur seals Arctocephalus gazella and
A. tropicalis at Macquarie Island. In: Hindell M, Kemper C (eds)
Marine mammal research in the Southern Hemisphere, Status, ecol-
ogy and medicine, vol vol. 1. Surrey Beatty & Sons, New South
Wales, Australia, pp 151–163
Gregory MR (1978) Accumulation and distribution of virgin plastic gran-
ules on New Zealand beaches. N Z J Mar Freshwater Res 12:399–414
Gregory MR (1996) Plastic ‘scrubbers’ in hand cleansers: a further (and
minor) source for marine pollution identified. Mar Pollut Bull 32:
867–871
Gregory MR (1999) Plastics and South Pacific Island shores: environ-
mental implications. Ocean Coast Manag 42:603–615
Gregory MR (2009) Environmental implications of plastic debris in ma-
rine settings: entanglement, ingestion, smothering, hangers-on,
hitch-hiking and alien invasions. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B
Biol Sci 364:2013–2025
Hall NM, Berry KLE, Rintoul L, Hoogenboom MO (2015) Microplastic
ingestion by scleractinian corals. Mar Biol. doi:10.1007/s00227-
015-2619-7
Hart MW (1991) Particle captures and the method of suspension feeding
by echinoderm larvae. Biol Bull 180:12–27
Hidalgo-Ruz V, Thiel M (2013) Distribution and abundance of small
plastic debris on beaches in the SE Pacific (Chile): a study supported
by a citizen science project. Mar Environ Res 88:12–18
Ivar do Sul JA, Spengler A, Costa MF (2009) Here, there and every-
where. Small plastic fragments and pellets on beaches of Fernando
de Noronha (Equatorial Western Atlantic). Mar Pollut Bull 58:
1229–1244
Jayasiri HB, Purushothaman CS, Vennila A (2013) Quantitative analysis
of plastic debris on recreational beaches in Mumbai, India. Mar
Pollut Bull 77:107–112
Jegou AM, Salomon JC (1991) Couplage imagerie thermique satellitaire-
modeles numeriques. application a la manche. Oceanol Acta 91:55–
61
Kaiser J (2010) The dirt on ocean garbage patches. Science 328:1506.
doi:10.1126/science.328.5985.1506
Kanehiro H, Tokai T, Matuda K (1995) Marine litter composition and
distribution on the sea-bed of Tokyo Bay. Fish Eng 31:195–199
Koutsodendris A, Papatheodorou G, Kougiourouki O, Georgiadis M
(2008) Benthic marine litter in four gulfs in Greece, Eastern
Mediterranean: abundance, composition and source identification.
Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 77:501–512
Kripa V, Nair PG, Dhanya AM, Pravitha VP, Abhilash KS, Mohammed
AA, Vijayan D, Vishnu PG, Mohan G, Kumar PS, Khambadker LR,
Prema D (2014) Microplastics in the gut of anchovies caught from
the mud bank area of Alappuzha, Kerala. Mar Fish Inf Serv Tech Ext
Ser 219:27–28
Kuhn S, van Franeker JA (2012) Plastic ingestion by the northern fulmar
(Fulmarus glacialis) in Iceland. Mar Pollut Bull 64:1252–1254
Laist DW (1987) Overview of the biological effects of lost and discarded
plastic debris in the marine environment. Mar Pollut Bull 18:319–
326
Lassen C, Hansen SF, Magnusson K, Noren F, Hartmann NIB, Jensen
PR, Nielsen TG, Brinch A (2015) Microplastics: occurrence, effects
21545
and sources of releases to the environment in Denmark. The Danish
Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.eng.mst.dk/
Law KL, Morèt-Ferguson S, Maximenko N, Proskurowski G, Peacock
EE, Hafner J, Reddy CM (2010) Plastic accumulation in the North
Atlantic subtropical gyre. Science 329:1185–1888
Lazar B, Gracan R (2011) Ingestion of marine debris by loggerhead sea
turtles, Caretta caretta, in the Adriatic Sea. Mar Pollut Bull 62:43–
47
Lebreton LCM, Greer SD, Borrero JC (2012) Numerical modeling of
floating debris in the world’s oceans. Mar Pollut Bull 64:653–661
Lechner A, Keckeis H, Lumesberger-Loisl F, Zens B, Krusch R, Tritthart
M et al (2014) The Danube so colourful: a potpourri of plastic litter
outnumbers fish larvae in Europe's second largest river. Environ
Pollut 188:177–181
Lee D, Hyeon-Seo C, Sun-Beom J (2006) Distribution characteristics of
marine litter on the sea bed of the East China Sea and the South Sea
of Korea. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 70:187–194
Lee J, Hong S, Song YK, Jang YC, Jiang M, Heo NW, Han GM, Kang D,
Shim WJ (2013) Relationships among the abundances of plastic
debris in different size, classes on beaches in South Korea. Mar
Pollut Bull 77:349–354
Li WC, Tse HF, Fok L (2016) Plastic waste in the marine environment: a
review of sources, occurrence and effects. Sci Total Environ 566:
333–349
Liebezeit G, Liebezeit E (2014) Synthetic particles as contaminants in
German beers. Food Addit Contam Part A 31:1574–1578
Lima ARA, Costa MF, Barletta M (2014) Distribution patterns of
microplastics within the plankton of a tropical estuary. Environ
Res 132:146–155
Lindborg VA, Ledbetter JF, Walat JM, Moffett C (2012) Plastic consump-
tion and diet of glaucous-winged gulls (Larus glaucescens). Mar
Pollut Bull 64:2351–2356
Lusher A, Milian GH, O’Brien J, Berrow S, O’Connor I, Officer R (2015)
Microplastic and macroplastic ingestion by a deep diving, oceanic
cetacean: the True’s beaked whale Mesoplodon Mirus. Environ
Pollut 199:85–191
Lusher AL, McHugh M, Thompson RC (2013) Occurrence of
microplastics in the gastrointestinal tract of pelagic and demersal
fish from the English Channel. Mar Pollut Bull 67:94–99
Magnusson K, Eliasson K, Frane A, Haikonen K, Hulten J, Olshammar
M, Stadmark J, Voisin A (2016) Swedish sources and pathways for
microplastics to the marine environment. A review of existing data.
IVL, C 183
Martins J, Sobral P (2011) Plastic marine debris on the Portuguese coast-
line: a matter of size? Mar Pollut Bull 62:2649–2653
Mato Y, Isobe T, Takada H, Kanehiro H, Ohtake C, Kaminuma T (2001)
Plastic resin pellets as a transport medium for toxic chemicals in the
marine environment. Environ Sci Technol 35:318–324
McCauley SJ, Bjorndal KA (1999) Conservation implications of dietary
dilution from debris ingestion: sublethal effects in post hatchling
loggerhead sea turtles. Conserv Biol 13:925–929
McDermid KJ, McMullen TL (2004) Quantitative analysis of small-
plastic debris on beaches in the Hawaiian archipelago. Mar Pollut
Bull 48:790–794
McMahon CR, Hooley D, Robinson S (1999) The diet of itinerant male
Hooker’s sea lions, Phocarctos hookeri, at sub-Antarctic Macquarie
Island. Wildl Res 26:839–846
Mons MN, van Egmond HP, Speijers GJA (1998) Paralytic shellfish
poisoning: a review. RIVM Report 388802 005
Moore CJ (2008) Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: a rap-
idly increasing, long-term threat. Environ Res 108:131–139
Moore CJ, Moore SL, Leecaster MK, Weisberg SB (2001) A comparison
of plastic and plankton in the North Pacific central gyre. Mar Pollut
Bull 42:1297–1300
 Author's personal copy
21546
Moore CJ, Moore SL, Weisberg SB, Lattin GL, Zellers AF (2002) A
comparison of neustonic plastic and zooplankton abundance in
southern California’s coastal waters. Mar Pollut Bull 44:1035–1038
Murray F, Cowie PR (2011) Plastic contamination in the decapod crusta-
cean Nephrops norvegicus. Mar Pollut Bull 62:1207–1217
Nerland IL, Halsband C, Allan I, Thomas KV (2014) Microplastics in
marine environments: occurrence, distribution and effects project
no. 14338 report no. 6754-2014 Oslo
Ng KL, Obbard JP (2006) Prevalence of microplastics in Singapore’s
coastal marine environment. Mar Pollut Bull 52:761–767
Noren F, Naustvoll F (2010) Survey of microscopic anthropogenic parti-
cles in Skagerrak. Report commissioned by Klimaog
Forurensningsdirektoratet Oslo, Norway
Obbard RW, Sadri S, Wong YQ, Khitun AA, Baker I, Thompson RC
(2014) Global warming releases microplastic legacy frozen in Arctic
Sea ice. Earth’s Future. doi:10.1002/2014EF000240
Pallone FHR (2015) Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015, Public Law
No. 114-114. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-
bill/1321. Accessed on 14 Aug 2017
Parker DM, Cooke WJ, Balazs GH (2005) Diet of oceanic loggerhead sea
turtles (Caretta caretta) in the central North Pacific. Fish Bull 103:
142–152
Perschbacher E (2016) Microbeads—Legislative Update Retrieved from
http://www.ijc.org/en_/blog/2016/03/01/microbeads_legislative_
update_story4
Pham CK, Ramirez-Llodra E, Alt CHS, Amaro T, Bergmann M, Canals
M, Company JB, Davies J, Duineveld G, Galgani F, Howell KL,
Huvenne VA, Isidro E, Jones DO, Lastras G, Morato T, Gomes-
Pereira JN, Purser A, Stewart H, Tojeira I, Tubau X, Van Rooij D,
Tyler PA (2014) Marine litter distribution and density in European
seas, from the shelves to deep basins. PLoS One. doi:10.1371/
journal.pone.0095839
Plastic Polution Coalition (2015) The golden state gilds its microbead ban
http://www.plasticpollutioncoalition.org/pft/2015/10/8/the-golden-
state-gilds-its-microbead-ban. Accessed on 14 Feb 2017
Plastic Polution Coalition (2016a) California defeats big plastic http://
www.plasticpollutioncoalition.org/pft/2016/11/9/california-defeats-
big-plastic. Accessed on 20 Jan 2017
Plastic Polution Coalition (2016b) California introduces National Trash
Reduction act http://www.plasticpollutioncoalition.org/pft/2015/11/
6/california-introduces-national-trash-reduction-act. Accessed on 20
Jan 2017
Plastic Polution Coalition (2016c) The first American city to ban plastic
bottles http://www.plasticpollutioncoalition.org/pft/2016/2/19/the-
first-american-city-to-ban-plastic-water-bottles. Accessed on 22
Jan 2017
Plastic Soup Foundation (2016) Retrieved from http://www.
beatthemicrobead.org/en/industry. Accessed on 27 Jan 2017
Plastics Europe (2014) Plastics—the Facts 2014/2015: an analysis of
European plastics production, demand and waste data. (Retrieved
from) http://issuu.com/plasticseuropeebook/docs/final_plastics_
the_facts_2014_19122/1?e=5245759/13757977
Pohlmann AR, FonsecaFN PK, Detoni CB, Coradini K, Beck RC et al
(2013) Poly (ε-caprolactone) microcapsules and nanocapsules in
drug delivery. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 10:623–638
Possatto FE, Barletta M, Costa MF, Ivar do Sul JA, Dantas DV (2011)
Plastic debris ingestion by marine catfish: an unexpected fisheries
impact. Mar Pollut Bull 62:1098–1102
Ramos JAA, Barletta M, Costa MF (2012) Ingestion of nylon threads by
Gerreidae while using a tropical estuary as foraging grounds. Aquat
Biol 17:29–34
Rands MRW, Adams WM, Bennun L, Butchart SHM, Clements A,
Coomes D, Entwistle A, Hodge I, Kapos V, Jr S, Sutherland WJ,
Vira B (2010) Biodiversity conservation: challenges beyond.
Science 329:1298–1303
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2017) 24:21530–21547
Reisser J, Shaw J, Wilcox C, Hardesty BD, Proiett M, Thums M,
Pattiaratchi C (2013) Marine plastic pollution in waters around
Australia: characteristics, concentrations, and pathways. PLoS One
8. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0080466
Reisser J, Slat B, Noble K, du Plessis K, Epp M, Proietti M, de Sonneville
J, Becker T, Pattiaratchi C (2015) The vertical distribution of buoy-
ant plastics at sea: an observational study in the North Atlantic gyre.
Biogeosciences 12:1249–1256
Revelles M, Cardona L, Aguilar A, Fernandez G (2007) The diet of
pelagic loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) off the Balearic ar-
chipelago (western Mediterranean): relevance of long-line baits. J
Mar Biol Assoc U K 87:805–813
Robards MD, Piatt JF, Wohl KD (1995) Increasing frequency of plastic
particles ingested by seabirds in the subarctic North Pacific. Mar
Pollut Bull 30:151–157
Ryan PG (1987) The incidence and characteristics of plastic particles
ingested by seabirds. Mar Environ Res 23:175–206
Ryan PG (2008) Seabirds indicate changes in the composition of plastic
litter in the Atlantic and south-western Indian Oceans. Mar Pollut
Bull 56:1406–1409
Ryan PG, Moore CJ, van Franeker JA, Moloney CL (2009) Monitoring
the abundance of plastic debris in the marine environment. Philos
Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 364:1999–2012
Sadri SS, Thompson RC (2014) On the quantity and composition of
floating plastic debris entering and leaving the Tamar estuary,
Southwest England. Mar Pollut Bull 81:55–60
Slavin C, Grage A, Campbell ML (2012) Linking social drivers of marine
debris with actual marine debris on beaches. Mar Pollut Bull 64:
1580–1588
Santos RG, Andrades R, Boldrini MA, Martins AS (2015) Debris inges-
tion by juvenile marine turtles: an underestimated problem. Mar
Pollut Bull 93:37–43
Setala O, Fleming-Lehtinen V, Lehtiniemi M (2014) Ingestion and trans-
fer of microplastics in the planktonic food web. Environ Pollut 185:
77–83
Sivan A (2011) New perspectives in plastic biodegradation. Curr Opin
Biotechnol 22:422–426
Stephens B, Azimi P, El Orch Z, Ramos T (2013) Ultrafine particle
emissions from desktop 3D printers. Atmos Environ 79:334–339
Sundt P, Schulze P-E, Syversen F (2014) Sources of microplastic-
pollution to the marine environment. Report no M-321/2015.
Asker: Mepex consult
Sutherland WJ, Clout M, Cote IM, Daszak P, Depledge MH, Fellman L,
Fleishman E, Garthwaite R, Gibbons DW, De Lurio J, Impey AJ,
Lickorish F, Lindenmayer D, Madgwick J, Margerison C, Maynard
T, Peck LS, Pretty J, Prior S, Redford KH, Scharlemann JPW,
Spalding M, Watkinson AR (2010) A horizon scan of global con-
servation issues for 2010. Trends Ecol Evol 25:1–7
Tanaka K, Takada H, Yamashita R, Mizukawa K, Fukuwaka MA,
Watanuki Y (2013) Accumulation of plastic-derived chemicals in
tissues of seabirds ingesting marine plastics. Mar Pollut Bull 69:
219–222
Teegarden GJ, Cembella AD (1996) Grazing of toxic dinoflagellates,
Alexandrium spp., by adult copepods of coastal Maine: implications
for the fate of paralytic shellfish toxins in marine food webs. J Exp
Mar Biol Ecol 196:145–176
The Globe and Mail Newspaper (2016) Government of Canada labels
microbeads ‘toxic substance’ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/
news/national/feds-label-microbeads-as-toxicsubstance/
article30698903/. Accessed 20 Feb 2017
Thompson RC, Olsen Y, Mitchell RP, Davis A, Rowland SJ, John AWG,
McGonigle D, Russell AE (2004) Lost at sea: where is all the plas-
tic? Science 304:838–844
Thompson RC (2006) Plastic debris in the marine environment: conse-
quences and solutions. In: Krause JC, Nordheim H, Bräger S (eds)
 Author's personal copy
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2017) 24:21530–21547
Marine nature conservation in Europe. Federal Agency for Nature
Conservation, Stralsund, pp 107–115
Thompson R, Browne MA, Galloway T (2007) Microplastic e an emerg-
ing contaminant of potential concern? Integr Environ Assess Manag
3:559–561
Thompson RC, Moore CJ, vom Saal FS, Swan SH (2009) Plastics, the
environment and human health: current consensus and future trends.
Philos Trans R Soc B 364:2153–2216
Tubau X, Canals M, Lastras G, Rayo X, Rivera J, Amblas D (2015)
Marine litter on the floor of deep submarine canyons of the north-
western Mediterranean sea: the role of hydrodynamic processes.
Prog Oceanogr 134:379–403
Tuner A, Holmes L (2011) Occurrence, distribution and characteristics of
beached plastic production pellets bon the island of Malta (central
Mediterranean). Mar Pollut Bull 62:377–381
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2009) Marine litter: a
global challenge. UNEP, Nairobi, p 232
Van A, Rochman CM, Flores EM, Hill KL, Vargas E, Vargas SA (2012)
Persistent organic pollutants in plastic marine debris found on
beaches in San Diego, California. Chemosphere 86:258–263
van Cauwenberghe L, Janssen CR (2014) Microplastics in bivalves cul-
tured for human consumption. Environ Pollut 193:65–70
Van Cauwenberghe L, Vanreusel A, Mees J, Janssen CR (2013)
Microplastic pollution in deep-sea sediments. Environ Pollut 182:
495–499
van Sebille E, England MH, Froyland G (2012) Origin, dynamics and
evolution of ocean garbage patches from observed surface drifters.
Environ Res Lett. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044040
View publication stats
21547
Vlietstra LS, Parga JA (2002) Long-term changes in the type, but not
amount, of ingested plastic particles in short-tailed shearwaters in
the southeastern Bering Sea. Mar Pollut Bull 44:945–955
Watts AJR, Lewis C, Goodhead RM, Beckett SJ, Moger J, Tyler CR,
Galloway TS (2014) Uptake and retention of microplastics by the
shore crab Carcinus maenas. Environ Sci Technol 48:8823–8830
Wilson DS (1973) Food size selection among copepods. Ecology 54:
909–914
Wirtz KW (2012) Who is eating whom? Morphology and feeding type
determine the size relation between planktonic predators and their
ideal prey. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 445:1–12
Wright SL, Rowe D, Thompson RC, Galloway TS (2013) Microplastic
ingestion decreases energy reserves in marine worms. Curr Biol 23:
1031–1033
Yap H (2012) Coral reef ecosystems. In: Meyers R (ed) Encyclopedia of
sustainability science and technology. Springer, New York, pp
2489–2509
Zbyszewski M, Corcoran PL, Hockin A (2014) Comparison of the dis-
tribution and degradation of plastic debris along shorelines of the
Great Lakes, North America. J Great Lakes Res 40:288–299
Zhang H, Kuo YY, Gerecke AC, Wang J (2012) Co-release of
hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) and nano-and microparticles
from thermal cutting of polystyrene foams. Environ Sci Technol
46:10990–10996
Zhang Y, Zhang YB, Feng Y, Yang XJ (2010) Reduce the plastic debris: a
model research on the great Pacific ocean garbage patch. Adv Mater
Res 116:59–63
Zitko V, Hanlon M (1991) Another source of pollution by plastics: skin
cleansers with plastic scrubbers. Mar Pollut Bull 22:41–42