Environmental Science and Pollution Research

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11171-7

REVIEW ARTICLE

Microplastics in freshwater ecosystems: a recent review

of occurrence, analysis, potential impacts, and research needs
Shazani Sarijan 1 & Shamila Azman 1 & Mohd Ismid Mohd Said 1 & Mohamad Hidayat Jamal 1

Received: 11 July 2020 / Accepted: 6 October 2020

# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
The utilization of plastics has now become a threat to the environment as it generates microplastic particles (<5 mm in size). The
increasing studies on the occurrence of microplastics in different environmental compartments have raised concern about the
potential effects on ecosystems and living organisms. Of these, numerous studies are focused on marine environments. The
occurrence of microplastics is recently extended to the freshwater environments, including river systems, streams, lakes, pond,
creek, and estuarine rivers. This paper overviews the current knowledge and research findings on the occurrence of microplastics
in water, sediment, and fish in freshwater environments. The review also covers the adopted methodology and impacts of
microplastics to the ecosystem. Future perspectives are discussed as well in this review.

Keywords Microplastics . Freshwater . Environmental compartments . Ingestion . Fish

Introduction waste worldwide, generating almost 60 million tons (Jambeck

The production of plastics is a global success since its first
synthesis in the early 1900s (Piringer & Baner 2008). Over
the last decade, the utilization of plastic products has become
increasingly important due to its durability, lightness, and resis-
tance to certain chemicals (Hopewell et al. 2009; Sharma et al.
2017). Most of the synthetic polymers productively invented to
replace other materials such as metal, glass, ceramic, and wood
products (Wong et al. 2015). The widespread use of plastics has
become a serious pollution issue and is categorized as an area of
particular concern all over the world (Su et al. 2016). A previ-
ous study has shown that the annual global generation of plastic
waste in 2010 was 273.27 million tons (Jambeck et al. 2015).
Geyer et al. (2017) reported that plastic waste generation and
disposal around the world shown an exponential increment
trend. China was reported as the largest contributor to plastic
Responsible Editor: Philippe Garrigues
* Shamila Azman
shamila@utm.my
1
Department of Water and Environmental Engineering, School of
Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia, 81310 Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
et al. 2015; Qu et al. 2019). Meanwhile, the USA (37.8 million
tons), Germany (14.4 million tons), and Japan (7.99 million
tons) are among the top 3 high-income countries which gener-
ated plastic waste. In the Southeast Asian region, the highest
plastic waste generation was dominated by Indonesia with
5.046 million tons, followed by Thailand (3.533 million tons)
and Vietnam (3.268 million tons). Malaysia ranked fifth among
Southeast Asian countries in generating an outstanding amount
of plastic waste.
The term microplastics was firstly described in 2004
when it refers to microscopic plastic debris less than 5
mm. The term was subsequently accepted by the scientific
community and is often used broadly in the scientific liter-
ature (Van Cauwenberghe et al. 2015). In general, they are
classified into two groups, namely the primary and second-
ary microplastics. Primary microplastics include raw plas-
tic resin and microbeads (Hernandez et al. 2017). Most of
these items are used widely in air blasting, manufacturing
industry, and cleaning and cosmetic products (Eerkes-
Medrano et al. 2015). Meanwhile, secondary microplastics
are derived from continuous fragmentation of large plastics
debris, for example fibers and sharp-edge particles
(Anderson et al. 2016; Li et al. 2018).
To date, discovery on the impacts of microplastics in the
marine environment (e.g., Ferreira et al. 2020; Ivar Do Sul and
Costa 2014; Silva-Cavalcanti et al. 2017; Wright et al. 2013)

and the estuarine environment (e.g., Lima et al. 2014; Peng
et al. 2017; Sadri and Thompson 2014; Sruthy and Ramasamy
2017) has been reported by numerous studies. However, only
a few studies were reported on the occurrence of microplastics
in freshwater ecosystems as it is just recently studied, mostly
since 2014 (Yin et al. 2020; Slootmaekers et al. 2019). The
comprehensive database on its occurrence (i.e., distributions,
category, types of polymer) in rivers is still scarce (Mani et al.
2015; Wang et al. 2017a).
It was unanimously agreed that a river acts as a major
pathway to transport most of the plastic debris from land to
the marine environment. A previous study estimated 1.15 to
2.41 million tons of plastic waste is released to the ocean
annually (Lebreton et al. 2017). Their study reported that
122 polluting rivers contributed more than 90% of the total
plastic inputs. Meanwhile, Schmidt et al. (2017) has listed the
top 10 rivers transported 88 to 95% of the global plastic debris
to the marine environment. However, in certain regions, not
all plastic debris will be transported into the sea as most of this
polymer is captured by trash traps, beaching, and entrapped in
the trees along the river (Kooi et al. 2018). Unfortunately,
most of the trapped debris will remain in the riverbank and
submerged in the water and subsequently affect the ecosystem
and environmental health (Barboza et al. 2018).
It is worthy of note that the knowledge on the occurrence of
microplastics in the freshwater environment is crucial to un-
derstand its sources and transport into the ocean (Fahrenkamp-
Uppenbrink 2018). Several studies have reported that the oc-
currence of microplastics in the environment possibly origi-
nated from various terrestrial sources, such as sewage, indus-
tries, wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), washing, direct
disposal, road, and fishing (Dris et al. 2018). Of these,
WWTPs are indicated as one of the main contributors (Li
et al. 2018). Therefore, the review intends to (1) summarize
the abundance and distribution of microplastics in freshwater
ecosystems across different continents, (2) discuss the method
used for microplastic extraction, and (3) assess impacts of
microplastics in the freshwater environment and research
gap for future works.
Data collection and inclusion criteria
Literature retrieval was comprehensively performed using ISI
Web of Knowledge, Scopus, and Google Scholar. As for envi-
ronmental samples, the topic of search keywords included
“microplastics,” “sediment,” “water,” and “freshwater.”
Meanwhile, the search keywords for biota were “microplastics,”
“ingestion,” and “freshwater fish.” Both topics were searched
from the year 1970 to 2020. The assessment consists of articles
that define the microplastic pollution in the environment and
possesses comprehensive explanation of the covered topics, in-
cluding rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and streams. Only microplastic
Environ Sci Pollut Res
ingestion by freshwater fish was stressed in this paper to com-
pare the ingestion incidence based on its living and feeding
preference. Articles related to reviews, commentary, news ma-
terials, and chapter in books were excluded. All searched articles
were preliminarily screened according to relevant subject disci-
pline and title before full-text screening is carried out. A total of
47 articles were retrieved in this paper.
Microplastics in freshwater ecosystems
There are three potential ways of microplastics entering fresh-
water systems, such as wastewater treatment discharge, agri-
cultural runoff from land treated with sludge, and overflow of
sewage water due to heavy rainfall (Eriksen et al. 2013). It is
worth mentioning that the current design of wastewater treat-
ment plant (WWTP) is unable to eliminate microplastics. The
elimination rate of microplastics in WWTP is commonly as-
sociated with the types of treatment and the applied technolo-
gy in the system (Gatidou et al. 2019). Additionally, storms
and extreme weather have also shown a significant factor in
the abundance of microplastics in aquatic environments
(Anderson et al. 2016). The variability in microplastic abun-
dance can also be affected by the water conservancy projects
such as dams and reservoirs. Watkins et al. (2019) reported
that the concentration of microplastics in sediment in reser-
voirs was higher than those in downstream and upstream
areas. Indeed, these events typically lead microplastics to the
river bottom, sunk and covered by surface sediment.
Sediments are more stable where microplastic particles will
be transported slower compared to those floating or buoyant
in the water column (Su et al. 2016). Therefore, the seasonal
inputs and persistence of microplastics based on these factors
should be further investigated.
Abundance in water
Table 1 shows microplastic occurrence in different inland water
systems around the world. Regionally, twelve studies have been
reported in Asia, while six studies were performed in North and
South America and Europe, respectively. Of these, only eight
studies focused on spatiotemporal- and temporal-based sam-
pling trend. Fourteen studies focused on river systems, nine
on the lake, and one on creek and basin. China is the most
dominant country studying microplastic pollution, where the
research has been increasingly reported across the nation.
Microplastic abundance is commonly recorded based on
the surface area unit or volume of water samples. Based on
the temporal trend, microplastic abundance in North and
South America varies from 0.16 to 3437.94 item/m3 and
52,508 to 748,027 particle/km2. Spatially, the abundance of
microplastics recorded in Milwaukee River Basin to Lake
Michigan, USA (Lenaker et al. 2019) and Ottawa River,
Table 1 Microplastic pollution in fresh water ecosystems from different continents

Region Location Sampling Sampling method Abundance in Average Dominant Reference

Trend
Size (mm) Shape Color Polymer
Environ Sci Pollut Res

Asia Manas River Basin, China Spatial 2.5-L Stainless-steel drum 21 ± 3–49 ± 3 items/L 0.1–1 Fiber White and Black PE and PP Wang et al. 2020
Pearl River, China Spatiotemporal Plankton net 160-μm Spring: 0.14 ± 0.01 to < 0.25 Sheet White PE and PP Fan et al. 2019
mesh size 0.37 ± 0.05 items/L
Summer: 0.14 ± 0.01 to
0.35 ± 0.08 items/L
Winter: 0.36 ± 0.01 to
1.96 ± 0.90 items/L
Pearl River along Spatial 20 L bulk water using 5 L 19,860 items/m3 < 0.5 Film Blue and PA Yan et al. 2019
Guangzhou City, China water sampler and 50 μm Transparent
stainless-steel sieve
Poyang Lake, China Spatial 20 L bulk water using a steel 5 to 34 items/L 0.1–0.5 Film and Colored PE and PP Yuan et al. 2019
sampler and 50 μm fiber
stainless-steel sieve
Lake Ulansuhai, China Spatial L bulk water using a Teflon 1760 ± 710 to < 0.5 Fiber Black PE Wang et al. 2019
pump and 48-μm 10,120 ± 4090
stainless-steel sieve items/m3
Wei River, China Spatial 5-L glass bottle using 3.67 to 10.7 items/L < 0.5 Fiber NA NA Ding et al. 2019
pump and 75 μm
stainless-steel mesh
Urban Lakes in Spatial 40-L bulk water and 45-μm 2425 ± 247.5 to 7050 ± < 2 Linear Transparent PP Yin et al. 2019
Changsha, China stainless sieve 1060.66 items/m3
Nakdong River, Spatiotemporal Surface and midwater: 293 ± 83 to 4760 ± 5242 < 0.3 Fragment NA PP Eo et al. 2019
South Korea 100 L and 20-μm mesh particles/m3
portable net
Dongting Lake, China Spatial 20 L of bulk water and 900–2800 n/m3 <2 Fiber Transparent PE and PP Wang et al. 2018
stainless-steel sieve
mesh size 50 μm
Hong Lake, China 1250–4650 n/m3
Guangzhou City, China Spatial 60 L bulk water using 5 L 379 to 7924 items/m3 1 to 3 Fiber White PE and PP Lin et al. 2018
water sampler
Dongting Lake, China Spatial 30-L bulk water using 616.67 to 2316.67 0.5 to 1 Fragment White and Blue PS Jiang et al. 2018
flow sampler items/m3
Taihu Lake, China Spatial Plankton net and 5 L bulk 3.4 to 25.8 items/L 0.1 to 0.3 Fiber Blue Cellophone Su et al. 2016
water using steel sampler
North and South Milwaukee River Basin to Spatial Water column: neuston net 0.21 to 19.1 particle/m3 0.36–0.99 Fiber NA vary Lenaker et al. 2019
America Lake Michigan, USA 333-μm mesh
Lake Winnipeg, Canada Spatiotemporal Manta trawl 2014: 52,508–748,027 NA Fiber NA NA Anderson et al. 2017
particle/km2
2015: 69,167–266,001
particle/km2
Table 1 (continued)

Region Location Sampling Sampling method Abundance in Average Dominant Reference

Trend
Size (mm) Shape Color Polymer

2016: 66,788–293,449
particle/km2
Ottawa River, Canada Spatial Bottle sampling and manta Median 1.35 particle/L NA Fiber Red and Blue NA Vermaire et al. 2017
trawl
Wascana creek, Canada Spatiotemporal 80-μm mesh conical net 0.9 ± 0.3 to 7.7 ± 2.0 NA Fiber NA NA Campbell et al. 2017
and 75 μm mesh size particle/m3
San Gabriel River, USA Temporal: Water: nets less 1-mm mesh Nov: 150.57 particle/m3 1–4.75 Foam NA NA Moore et al. 2011
rainy and
dry
Dec: 18.81 particle/m3 Fragment
Apr: 0.16 particle/m3 Foam
Los Angeles River, USA Temporal: Water: net less than Nov: 3437.94 4.75–5 Foam NA NA Moore et al. 2011
rainy and 1-mm mesh particle/m3
dry
Dec: 20.20 particle/m3
Apr: 15.28 particle/m3 1–4.75
Europe Northern European Lake Spatial Manta trawl (333 μm) 0.27 ± 0.18 to 155 ± 73 0.02–0.1 Fiber NA PET Uurasjärvi
and a pump particle/m3 et al. 2020
Carpathian basin, CEE Spatial Jet pump 13.79 ± 9.26 particle/m3 NA NA NA PP Bordós et al. 2019
Antuã River, Portugal Spatio- Surface and bottom water: Mar: 58–193 item/m3 NA Fragment Colored PE and PP Rodrigues et al. 2018
temporal water pump with a
0.055-mm mesh net
Oct: 71–1265 item/m3
Rhine River, Germany Spatial Manta net 892,777 particle/km 300–1000 Sphere Opaque PS Mani et al. 2015
Seine and Marne Spatial Plankton net (PN) and 3–106 (PN) and NA Fiber NA NA Dris et al. 2015
River, France manta trawl (MT) 0.28–0.45 (MT)
particle/m3
Danube River, Austria Temporal Water column: 2010: 937.6 ± 8543.8 ⌀ 15.01 ± 12.58 Sphere NA NA Lechner et al. 2014
stationary conical driftnets particle/km
500-μm mesh
2012: 55.1 ± 75.4 Others
particle/km
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Canada (Vermaire et al. 2017) was 0.21 to 19.1 particle/m3
and median 1.37 item/L, respectively. The abundance of
microplastics from rivers in Europe regions varied from 55.1
± 75.4 to 892,777 particle/km and from 0.28 ± 0.18 to 1265
item/m3. In the Northern European Lake (Uurasjärvi et al.
2020) and Carpathian basin, CEE (Bordós et al. 2019), the
abundance of microplastics ranged from 0.27 ± 0.18 to 155
± 73 and 13.79 ± 9.26 particle/m3, respectively. Overall, the
abundance of microplastics in Asia varies from 0.14 ± 0.01 to
49 ± 3 items/L and also from 293 ± 83 to 19,860 items/m3,
where the highest abundance was reported in Pearl River
along with Guangzhou City, China (Yan et al. 2019). It is
worth noting that most of the inland water systems are used
for potable water sources for the local population. Most of
industrial players and agriculture sectors are also located ad-
jacent to the water system. For instance, both sectors in Taihu
Lake have been reported to generate 14% of the gross domes-
tic product in China. Thus, it demonstrates that inland water is
crucial for the regional economy and social development (Su
et al. 2016). Although the economy of the country
skyrocketed in the last few decades, almost 28% of plastic
waste was mismanaged in 2010 due to low level of waste
management (Jambeck et al. 2015).
Abundance in sediments
The extensive monitoring of microplastic pollution in fresh-
water sediment warrants further investigation; likewise marine
sediments, the freshwater sediment also could be a reservoir
for this pollutant (Wagner et al. 2014). Nevertheless,
Anderson et al. (2016) have reported that freshwater sedi-
ments are rarely sampled for microplastics. Based on the lit-
erature search, only 20 articles reported on the occurrence of
microplastics in freshwater sediments across different conti-
nents (Table 2).
The present review shows that most of the studies are dom-
inated by Asian countries, especially from China.
Nonetheless, among all locations, the highest concentration
of microplastics was recorded in Pearl River along with
Guangzhou City, up to 9597 particles per kg (Lin et al.
2018). The authors postulate that the occurrence of
microplastic in the river was influenced by WWTP. Their
study also reported that fiber was prevalent in sediment sam-
ples where the source possibly originated from synthetic
clothes. It is worthy of note that a single garment can release
up to 1900 fibers into the environment (Browne et al. 2011).
This type of microplastics is also likely to remain longer in
freshwater systems including natural water bodies, modified
water body (i.e., dammed reservoirs) or artificial water bodies
(i.e., artificial lake) (Eerkes-Medrano et al. 2015).
Only one study has been reported in North Africa, specif-
ically in Northern Tunisia (Toumi et al. 2019). Their finding
shows that the abundance of microplastics in seven streams at
Bizerte City ranged from 2340 ± 227.15 to 6920 ± 395.98
particles per kg. Meanwhile, microplastic pollution has also
been reported in North America freshwater systems, such as in
Atoyac River Basin, Mexico (Shruti et al. 2019), and St.
Lawrence River, Canada (Castañeda et al. 2014), from
833.33 ± 80.79 to 1633.34 ± 202.56 particles per kilogram
and 13 832 ± 13 677 microbeads per m2, respectively.
Interestingly, Castañeda et al. (2014) have found the highest
microplastic abundance at 1.4 × 105 microbeads per m2 from
one of their studied sites which is the same order of magnitude
with those found in the most contaminated marine sediments
in the world.
In European countries, the highest microplastic concentra-
tion in sediment was found in Rhine-Main River, Germany, at
4000 particles per kilogram (Klein et al. 2015), while the
lowest was in the UK Urban Lake, ranged from 25 to 30 items
per 100 g (Vaughan et al. 2017). However, only Rodrigues
et al. (2018) reported the microplastic abundance in Antuã
River, Portugal, based on two seasons which are in March
(Spring) and October (Autumn). The authors found that the
concentration was much higher in March (100 to 629 particles
per kg) compared to October (18 to 514 particles per kg).
Therefore, the investigation based on the temporal trend is
essential and need to be better understood.
Table 2 also indicated that most of the microplastics found
in freshwater environments are made of polypropylene (PP)
and polyethene (PE). PP and PE are slightly buoyant since the
density of these polymers is lower than of freshwater. During
plastic production, the density of these polymers can increase
resulting from the addition of mineral fillers of which can
make them tend to submerge (Corcoran 2015). On the other
hand, previous studies have also reported that biofouling can
cause smaller particles to sink due to their larger surface areas
(Fazey and Ryan 2016; Lin et al. 2018). It demonstrates that
the smaller particle lost buoyancy much faster than the bigger
ones (Fazey and Ryan 2016). Besides, the literature data also
reveals that the occurrence of microplastics in freshwater sed-
iments was mainly derived from secondary sources, except in
Shanghai, China where the sphere was the dominant character
(Peng et al. 2018). In contrast, only microbeads were recorded
in sediments from St. Lawrence River, Canada (Castañeda
et al. 2014). These microplastics are probably entering aquatic
environments through household and industrial sewage dis-
charge (Eriksen et al. 2013; Hidalgo-Ruz and Thiel 2012).
Occurrence of microplastics in freshwater fish
Table 3 shows the number of studies on ingestion of
microplastics by freshwater fish worldwide after searching
related articles from 1970 until the present, where the location
is arranged based on recent findings. The review indicates that
almost 70% of freshwater fish from the previous studies
ingested fibers. Fiber is more pliable compared to other plastic
Table 2 Microplastic pollution in freshwater sediments from different continents

Region Freshwater system Sampling trend Abundance in Dominant Reference

average (particles/kg)
Size (mm) Shape Color Polymer

Asia East Dongting Lake, China Spatial 180 ± 111 to 693 ± 95 < 0.5 Fiber Transparent PET Yin et al. 2020
Lake Ulansuhai, China Spatial 14 ± 3 to 24 ± 7 <2 Fiber Black PE Qin et al. 2019
Pearl River, China Spatial 685 ± 342 1.0–5.0 Film White/transparent PP and PE Fan et al. 2019
Wei River, China Spatial 360 to 1320 < 0.5 Fiber NA NA Ding et al. 2019
Poyang Lake, China Spatial 54–506 < 0.5 Fiber Colored PP and PE Yuan et al. 2019
Pearl River along Spatial 80 to 9597 NA Fiber Yellow PP and PE Lin et al. 2018
Guangzhou City, China
Changsa, China Spatial 270.17 ± 48.23 to 866.59 ± 37.96 <1 Fragment Transparent PS Wen et al. 2018
Dongting Lake, China Spatial 200 to 1150 items/m3 < 0.5 Fiber Transparent PE and PET Jiang et al. 2018
Rivers in Shanghai, China Spatial 802 NA Sphere White PP Peng et al. 2018
Three Gorges Reservoir, China Spatial 25 to 300 <1 Fiber Transparent PS Di and Wang, 2018
Skudai and Tebrau River, Malaysia Spatial 200 ± 80 and 680 ± 140 1.0–5.0 Film Blue NA Sarijan et al. 2018
Beijiang River, China Spatial Up to 544 ± 107 NA NA NA NA Wang et al. 2017a
Vembanad Lake, Kerala, India Spatial 252.80 ± 25.76 particles/m2 NA NA NA LDPE Sruthy and Ramasamy 2017
Taihu Lake, China Spatial 11.0 to 234.6 0.1–1.0 Fiber NA Cellophane Su et al. 2016
North Africa 7 streams at Bizerte, Northern Tunisia Spatial 2340 ± 227.15 to 6920 ± 395.98 NA Fiber Black PP and PE Toumi et al. 2019
North America Atoyac River Basin, Spatial 833.33 ± 80.79 to 1633.34 ± 202.56 NA Film Colored NA Shruti et al. 2019
Puebla City, Mexico
Otawa River, Canada Spatial 0.22 particle per g NA Fiber Red and Blue NA Vermaire et al. 2017
2
St. Lawrence River, Canada Spatial 13 832 ± 13 677 microbeads/m NA Microbead NA NA Castañeda et al. 2014
Europe Antuã River, Portugal Spatiotemporal Mar: 100 to 629 NA Fragment Colored PP and PE Rodrigues et al. 2018
Oct: 18 to 514
UK Urban Lake Spatial 25 to 30 items/100 g NA Film and fiber NA NA Vaughan et al. 2017
Rhine-Main River, Germany Spatial 4000 0.63–5.0 NA NA PP, PE, and PS Klein et al. 2015
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Table 3 Ingestion of microplastics by different species of freshwater fish worldwide

Location n Species Type of organ Digestion Fish ingested Chemical Dominant

Environ Sci Pollut Res

method MP (%) confirmation

Color Size (mm) Shape
a
Rivers and Lake South-Western Germany 1167 22 species GI tract Direct inspection 18.80% Hot Needle Lake: White Lake: < 1.0 Lake: Fragment
River: Clear River: < 1.5 River: Fragment
and fiber
b
Australian Urban Wetlands 180 Gambusia holbrooki Head and Body NaOH Head: 7.2% ATR-FTIR NA NA Fiber
Body: 19.4%
c
Poyang Lake, China 11 Carassius auratus GI tract 10% KOH 90.91% No Colored 0.5 to 5 Fiber
d
Flemish rivers, Belgium 78 Gobio gobio GI tract Oven dried 9% Micro-FTIR spectroscopy Green <2 NA
e
Skudai River, Malaysia 60 6 species GI tract 10% KOH 40% ATR-FTIR Blue 1 to 5 Film and fiber
f
Marne and Seine Rivers, Paris 60 Squalius cephalus Stomach and liver NaClO solution Stomach: 25% Raman spectroscopy NA Stomach: > 1 Fiber
Liver: 5% Liver: 0.147
to 0.567
g
Qinghai Lake, China 10 Gymnocypris przewalskii GI tract 10% KOH 100% Raman spectroscopy NA NA Fiber
h
River Thames, UK 64 Rutilus rutilus GI tract Direct inspection 33% Raman spectroscopy NA NA Fiber
i
Taihu Lake, China 20–40 6 species GI tract 30% H2O2 NA Micro-FTIR spectroscopy Transparent 2 to 5 Fiber
j
Wascana creek, Canada 181 5 species GI tract NaClO solution 73.50% No Colored NA Fiber
k
Pajeú river, Brazil 48 Hoplosternum littorale GI tract Direct inspection 83% No NA NA Fiber
l
Brazos River Basin, USA 436 Lepomis spp. Stomach Direct inspection 44.95% No Blue and gray NA Fiber
m
Watersheds of the Gulf of Mexico 419 44 species GI tract Direct inspection 8.20% FTIR NA NA Film
n
French Rivers 186 Gobio gobio GI tract Direct inspection 12% No NA NA NA

a
Roch et al. (2019)
b
Su et al. (2019)
c
Yuan et al. (2019)
d
Slootmaekers et al. (2019)
e
Sarijan et al. (2019)
f
Collard et al. (2018)
g
Xiong et al. (2018)
h
Horton et al. (2018)
i
Jabeen et al. (2017)
j
Campbell et al. (2017)
k
Silva-Cavalcanti et al. (2017)
l
Peters and Bratton, (2016)
m
Phillips and Bonner, (2015)
n
Sanchez et al. (2014)

particles and likely ingested by smaller invertebrate in the
food webs (Gusmao et al. 2016). It is also often found blended
in sediment in freshwater environments (Fischer et al. 2016).
Hence, the accidental ingestion of this particle via trophic
transfer or mixed with sediment seems more likely to occur
compared to other types of microplastics.
Little information can be obtained about the color of
ingested microplastics by freshwater compared to marine
fishes. The color of ingested microplastics varies against
different species. For example, Gobio gobio mostly ingested
green particles in Flemish rivers, Belgium (Slootmaekers
et al. 2019). Blue and gray are prevalent in the stomach of
two sunfish, Lepomis spp. from Brazos River Basin, USA
(Peters and Bratton 2016). Meanwhile, five fish species at
Wascana creek, Canada (Campbell et al. 2017), and
Carassius auratus from Poyang Lake, China (Yuan et al.
2019), ingested mostly colored ones. On the other hand,
another fish species found in rivers and lake in South-
Western Germany (Roch et al. 2019) and Taihu Lake,
China (Jabeen et al. 2017) ingested either white or transpar-
ent microplastics. Recently, a few studies have reported on
the feeding preference of fish based on different characters
of microplastics such as color, shape, and size. For example,
in the laboratory experiments, Ory et al. (2018) demonstrat-
ed that juvenile palm ruff (Seriolella violacea) preferentially
ingested black particles over other colors. Xiong et al.
(2019) reported that, in the presence of fish feed, green,
black, and film particles were mostly ingested by goldfish
(Carassius auratus) compared with other characters.
Meanwhile, Roch et al. (2020) demonstrated that particles
resembling commercial pellet color were frequently ingested
by the studied fish. Most of the fish rely mainly on vision to
search and assess the food items in the aquatic environ-
ments. However, when the environmental condition is under
a minimum illumination, it inhibits the assessment of food
item edibility. Alternatively, the feeding behavior of fish can
also be affected by different chemical sense regulators.
These regulators are often used to detect food items through
chemoreception such as olfaction (smell) and gustation
(taste). Some species have specialized taste receptors; for
instance, barbels in catfishes contain a very high concentra-
tion of taste buds (Morais 2017). In general, the taste recep-
tors are used to determine the palatability of food items and
harmful compounds before consumption (Kasumyan 2019).
It is noted that the food items are scattered, and this will
create an odor dispersal field within habitat (Atema et al.
2012; Kasumyan 2019). The odor can activate the olfactory
receptor in fish to evaluate the food items by distant senses.
Such a situation was imitated in an experiment by Savoca
et al. (2017) on the adult anchovy. Their study shows the
foraging behaviors of anchovy school to biofouled plastic
odor but not to clean plastic and control treatments.
According to Costa and Barletta (2015), species that can
Environ Sci Pollut Res
adapt to an extensive range of environmental conditions
may probably ingest more microplastics since its prey are
also diverse. It is because the size, shape, odor, and color of
plastic are similar to the prey. Hence, it shows that both
visual and chemical cues can make aquatic organisms con-
fused and difficult to ignore microplastic particles as a po-
tential prey during foraging.
Based on Table 3, three species of the freshwater fish show
a high incidence of microplastic ingestion such C. auratus
(90.91%), G. przewalskii (100%), and H. littorale (83%).
However, the number of C. auratus and G. przewalskii is
much smaller compared with that of H. littorale. It may affect
the percentage of the actual incidence of ingestion in environ-
ments. Silva-Cavalcanti et al. (2017) reported that the high
incidence of microplastic ingestion has only shown a limited
impact on H. littorale. Thus, their study suggested that this
species could act as a potential candidate to monitor
microplastic pollution in freshwater environments. In marine
environments, Neves et al. (2015) have suggested chub mack-
erel, Scomber japonicus, as an indicator species in monitoring
ingested litter in Marine Strategy Framework Directive marine
regions. Their investigation shows that S. japonicus (n = 35)
has the highest mean of ingested microplastics compared to
other 25 studied species in those regions.
Analysis of microplastics from environments
Three different methods have been used to collect
microplastics from water samples such as grab sampling/
bulk samplers, zooplankton sampling methods (i.e., neuston
and plankton nets), and pumps at different water columns.
Such investigation is pertinent to document a comprehensive
database on microplastic pollution from the surface of a river
or lake to the bottom of sediment. Initially, there is no standard
strategy for sampling microplastics from the environment
(Green et al. 2018). Some studies have recently compared
those methods to examine their efficiency and provide an
accurate measurement of microplastic composition in aquatic
environments. Surface trawling using net-based sampling
methods (i.e., neuston nets) is commonly adopted to examine
microplastic density in a large area and a greater volume of
water. It is crucial to ensure all collected particles in the nets
transferred to a sample container before the next sampling.
However, these methods have the limitation by its mesh size
where it is mostly seized and is sorted as large microplastics.
Previous studies have used various mesh sizes from 50 to
3000 μm. In general, nets with 300-μm mesh are commonly
used compared with other mesh sizes. Although these nets
able to capture microplastic particles from a large volume of
water, particles size that is less than 300 μm failed to retain
(Löder and Gerdts 2015). Recently, Lindeque et al. (2020)
have investigated the relationship in the abundance of
Environ Sci Pollut Res
microplastics between different sampling mesh sizes such as
100, 333, and 500 μm. Their study found that the nets with
100-μm mesh size can capture 2.5-fold and 10-fold greater
concentrations of microplastics compared with 333 and
500 μm nets respectively. The limitation of using a smaller
mesh size is the suspended particulate matter levels in the
water. The concentration of this matter is often high where it
can reduce the filtered volume of water due to clogged net.
Unlike net-based sampling, grab sampling method can capture
a higher number of smaller plastics at micro- and nano-scale
(Green et al. 2018; Barrows et al. 2017). This factor can also
underestimate the level of microplastic concentrations.
Sampling strategy for sediment samples is divided into
samples collected from the shoreline and riverbed. Shore
sediments are often collected by grid samples with the depth
of sampling ranges from 2 to 5 cm of the upper layer of
sediment using stainless-steel spoon, shovel, or trowel (Peng
et al. 2018). However, this kind of sampling procedure will
affect the final concentration unit where the use of grid
samples varies according to results per surface sampled,
usually in square meters and bulk samples which is typically
referred to mass, cubic meter or kilogram. In contrast, the
application of sediment grabs provides relatively comparable
results as the sampling instrument is standardized across the
world (Klein et al. 2018). All environmental compartments
(water, sediment, biota) are processed similarly in the labo-
ratory. Figure 1 shows that at least four steps are usually
employed such as density separation, filtration, sieving, and
visual sorting.
Fig 1 The possible strategies to
analyze microplastics in the
environmental compartments
based on available literature
NaCl
NaI
ZnCl2
Microscope
Naked eye
Separation of microplastics from environmental
matrices
It is well-known that samples contain high organic matter
can disrupt the quantification and identification of suspected
particles. Based on previous works, many researchers have
adopted a pre-treatment step by using different types of ox-
idizing chemicals, acid, alkali digestion, or enzymatically
catalyzed reaction to eliminate biogenic materials from en-
vironmental samples prior to density separation. Indeed, it
has minimized the possibility of misidentification or under-
estimation of microplastics during microscopy analysis
(Klein et al. 2018).
Destruction of natural debris in environmental samples is
achieved with a wide range of oxidizing chemicals such as
hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) (e.g., Ding et al. 2019; Lin et al.
2018; Yan et al. 2019), mixtures of sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and
H2O2 (Wang et al. 2017a), mixtures of H2O2 and Fe (II) so-
lution (Estahbanati and Fahrenfeld 2016; Wen et al. 2018), or
mixtures of H2O2 and enzyme (Lorenz 2014). Meanwhile,
few studies have also used acid such as hydrochloric acid
(HCl) (Eriksen et al. 2013) or alkali digestion methods by
soaking sediment samples in sodium hydroxide (NaOH) so-
lution (Nuelle et al. 2014). However, the use of these
chemicals could damage some microplastics, for example,
discoloration and degradation of particles (Cole et al. 2014).
The application of an alternative method for digestion, such
as enzymes, is less hazardous and less likely to cause damage
to microplastic particles (Karlsson et al. 2017). Nonetheless,
Samples
Sieving
Pre-treatment
Elimination of biogenic
• Enzymatic
• Oxidizing chemical
Density separation
Post-treatment Elimination of biogenic
• Enzymatic
• Oxidizing chemical
Visual inspection
Pyrolysis GCMS
FTIR
Polymer Identification
SEM-EDS
Raman
Analysis Hot needle

compared to the chemical digestion technique, enzymatic
treatments are expensive and very time-consuming as well
as do not yield a complete removal of organic matter (Klein
2015). As of today, H2O2 has been used by many studies to
eliminate organic matter from sediment samples. Meanwhile,
very few studies have used freeze-dried and homogenization
method (Fan et al. 2019).
Density separation is a commonly used technique to sepa-
rate microplastics from samples. Most of the techniques used
in previous works followed the separation method introduced
by Thompson et al. (2004). The utilization of different salt
solutions is one of the alteration steps in this technique by
creating a dense liquid to microplastic particle float. The com-
mon salt used for density separation is sodium chloride (NaCl)
since this salt is cheaper, highly available, and ecofriendly
(Lin et al. 2018). Other salt solutions used are potassium for-
mate (KF) (Fan et al. 2019), sodium iodide (NaI) (Claessens
et al. 2013; Nuelle et al. 2014), zinc bromide (ZnBr2), and zinc
chloride (ZnCl2) (Imhof et al. 2012; Nuelle et al. 2014). NaI (ρ
approximately 1.6–1.8 g cm−3), ZnBr2 (ρ approximately 1.7 g
cm−3), and ZnCl2 (ρ > 1.6 to 1.7 g cm−3) have higher densities
than NaCl (ρ approximately 1.2 g cm−3). Hence, these salt
solutions can offer consistent separation for polyethylene tere-
phthalate (PET), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and other higher-
density polymers. NaI and KF are too expensive, thus, are not
a viable choice for large-volume sediment samples (Klein
et al. 2018). The ecological hazard of ZnCl2 and ZnBr2 also
complicates the issue on their waste disposal and contaminat-
ed sediments.
Digestion of animal tissues
Microplastic pollution study is often hampered by the techni-
cal difficulty to extract particles from aquatic animals (Avio
et al. 2015). Therefore, microplastic characteristics such as
color, size, density, and polymer composition should be con-
sidered during the development of the digestion method. It is
noted that the earlier studies only observed microplastics di-
rectly from animal organ under a light microscope or naked
eyes (Peters and Bratton 2016; Phillips and Bonner 2015;
Sanchez et al. 2014; Silva-Cavalcanti et al. 2017) and is still
utilized until present (Roch et al. 2019).
The gastrointestinal tract is commonly used for the ex-
traction of microplastics from fish samples. However, to
minimize interference during the digestion process, other
internal organs and fatty tissue are excised from the tract
(Roch et al. 2019). Meanwhile, only a few researchers in-
vestigated these particles from different organs such as
stomachs and the liver (Collard et al. 2018; Peters and
Bratton 2016). Remarkably, the investigation of
microplastics from different parts of fish by separating its
head and body has also been reported (Su et al. 2019).
Environ Sci Pollut Res
The stomach was regarded for plastic estimation by many
previous studies in marine environments (Bellas et al. 2016;
Neves et al. 2015). Besides, the Marine Strategy Framework
Directive Technical Subgroup of Marine Litter preferably use
the stomach sample to investigate the occurrence of
microplastics in marine fish. Some studies have also used
different organs, such as intestine and stomach of the fish
(Jabeen et al. 2017). The authors found that the abundance
of plastic items was significantly higher in the intestine com-
pared to the stomach of Liza haematocheila and Psen.
anomala (p < 0.01). It shows that the use of the whole gastro-
intestinal (GI) tract is recommended to prevent any bias of the
results. According to Silva-Cavalcanti et al. (2017), the GI
tract content of fish could be adopted as a tool for the qualita-
tive assessment of microplastic pollution in freshwater ecosys-
tems. Thus, it shows the non-uniformity of the microplastic
occurrence in aquatic organisms across the regions.
There are many different proposed protocols in isolating
microplastic from fish samples (Roch and Brinker 2017).
For instance, Avio et al. (2015) investigated the efficacy of
microplastic extraction from fish tissues based on six different
protocols, including the existing and newly proposed proce-
dures. The authors reveal that their new proposed protocol, a
combination of density separation using NaCl and H2O2 oxi-
dation treatment, yields high recovery of microplastics from
the fish sample. However, it should be noted that the efficacy
of this protocol was only tested using the lower-density poly-
mers such as polyethylene and polystyrene. Similar to sedi-
ments, the addition of density separation step to extract
microplastics from animal samples would be the most practi-
cal way. Besides H2O2, other chemicals used for digestion
method are potassium hydroxide (KOH) (Xiong et al. 2018),
sodium hydroxide (NaOH) (Su et al. 2019), and sodium hy-
pochlorite (NaClO) (Campbell et al. 2017). However, until
recently, KOH is often used for the extraction of microplastic
particles from fish and regarded as suitable digestion solution
both for bivalves (Thiele et al. 2019) and fish samples (Bessa
et al. 2018; Kühn et al. 2017).
Hermsen et al. (2018) have previously proposed a stan-
dardized protocol alongside the quality assessment method
for the detection of ingested microplastic in both invertebrate
and vertebrate (marine) biota. The protocol and quality assess-
ment were developed based on ten scoring categories, namely
(1) sampling characteristics should be recorded, (2) sample
size of 50 individuals are randomly selected per research unit,
(3) captured samples should be stored at − 20 °C, (4) use clean
materials and filtered solutions, (5) sample handling in sealed-
off facilities, (6) three replicate blanks per batch as a negative
control, (7) positive control (triplicate) containing
microplastic particles that are treated in parallel to the biota
samples, (8) the whole GI tract of fish should be examined, (9)
digestion step using 10% KOH solution, and (10) polymer
verification using spectroscopy, pyrolysis, or TGA-GC-MS.
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Koelmans et al. (2019) then proposed the quality criteria to
sample, extract, and detect microplastics in freshwaters and
drinking water by following this protocol. Although these
protocols are slightly rigorous, yet it produced a comparable
result with other studies across different regions.
Identification of microplastics
from the environment
Three common analytical techniques to identify polymers of
microplastics are visual inspection, chromatography, and
spectroscopy techniques (Li et al. 2018). Visual inspection
under a stereomicroscope has been considered a recommend-
ed approach to identify microplastics (Vaughan et al. 2017).
This technique is the most straightforward and widely adopted
by many researchers (Fan et al. 2019; Li et al. 2018).
However, this technique is unable to determine the synthetic
polymer of microplastics. It is difficult to quantify and qualify
microplastic particles using a single analytical technique (Li
et al. 2018). Hence, previous research has coupled it with
chromatographic or spectroscopic methods (Fan et al. 2019;
Peng et al. 2018).
The commonly used chromatographic methods are pyrol-
ysis gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (Pyr-GCMS)
(Fischer and Scholz-Böttcher 2017; Tagg et al. 2015) and
liquid chromatography (Wang et al. 2017b). GCMS is a
thermo-analytical method; thus, first, samples should thermal-
ly be degraded before analyzing it using the mass spectrome-
ter. This method could be less suitable if samples mixed with a
high concentration of impurities and less than 500 μm in size
(Ivleva et al. 2017). Besides, the preparation of polymer ex-
tracts using appropriate solvents is necessary before quantifi-
cation of microplastic particles (Elert et al. 2017). However,
the application of this method is rarely found in many previ-
ous studies associated with the occurrence of microplastics.
Spectroscopic methods such as Raman Spectroscopy (e.g.,
Jiang et al. 2018; Wen et al. 2018; Yuan et al. 2019) and
Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) (e.g.,
Cheung et al. 2018; Fan et al. 2019; Lin et al. 2018) are widely
used in most microplastics obtained from both marine and
freshwater environments. Besides that, another spectroscopy
method such as scanning electron microscopy has also been
reported in few studies by measuring the secondary ion results
from the interaction between an electron beam and sample
(Ding et al. 2019). As for Raman spectroscopy, it is suitable
to identify smaller microplastics ranged from 1 to 20 μm with
relatively low sensitivity against water. Nevertheless, most of
the previous studies reported that the weathering and biofoul-
ing of microplastics would change the resulting spectroscopic,
yet further complicate the analysis (Li et al. 2018; Wang et al.
2017b). This type of identification technique has great fluo-
rescence interferences from biological, organic, and inorganic
impurities. Thus, the purification of samples is initially re-
quired before Raman analysis to overcome the limitation (Li
et al. 2018).
FTIR is a well-established, non-destructive-based method
and able to yield results faster as well as reliable results. The
method is used by allowing the particle to infrared radiation,
while diamond used in attenuated total reflectance (ATR)
application has excellent physical properties and is highly
scratch-resistant. Most of larger particles more than
500 μm in size are commonly analyzed by ATR-FTIR. In
contrast, microscopy-coupled μ-FTIR (micro-FTIR) will be
used for smaller particles with a size down to 20 μm (Li
et al. 2018). On the other hand, heat test using a hot needle
tip has also been reported by several studies (Bellas et al.
2016; Budimir et al. 2018; Campbell et al. 2017; Devriese
et al. 2017; Roch et al. 2019). This technique is useful when
the particle cannot be identified due to its smaller size, avail-
ability of spectroscopic instruments, and cost; however, it is
only limited to observation of their melting point and not the
type of the polymer.
Impacts to freshwater ecosystem
Factors to microplastic pollution
Most of the previous studies have found that fish inhabiting
close to urban area ingested more microplastics. For instance,
Silva-Cavalcanti et al. (2017) reported that the concentration
of microplastic obtained in H. littorale guts was higher in two
densely urbanized areas situated in Serra Talhada City com-
pared to the other two stations. The authors indicated that
these two sites are located in the more polluted section of
Pajeú River according to an assessment of solid waste along
this channel. Peters and Bratton (2016) also demonstrate a
similar finding in the Brazos River Basin, Central Texas.
Their study shows that the number of ingested microplastics
in two Lepomis spp. is higher near the urbanized area com-
pared to the less urban area. Similarly, Sanchez et al. (2014)
and Silva-Cavalcanti et al. (2017) have found a high propor-
tion of ingested microplastics in studied fish sampled from
urbanized rivers. These findings support the hypothesis where
urban areas close to water bodies are the most potential
sources of microplastic pollution in freshwaters (Wagner
et al. 2014).
Besides the color and odor of microplastic particles,
feeding habits also influenced the ingestion incidence.
Jabeen et al. (2017) revealed that the abundance of plastic
items ingested by demersal fish species is significantly higher
than of pelagic fish (t test, p < 0.05). The authors imply that the
high incidence of microplastic ingestion by demersal fish is
probably related to the presence of plastic debris near to the
seabed. Their study corroborates with Woodall et al. (2014),

indicating that the incidence of microplastic ingestion can also
be influenced by their habitats. Meanwhile, Mizraji et al.
(2017) reported that the omnivorous fish ingested greater
amount of fibers than of herbivores and carnivores. Further
study of microplastic ingestion by freshwater fish based on
their feeding habits remains the major knowledge gap.
Concern on microplastic ingestion
The ingestion incident can affect the growth rate, hatchability,
and food ingestion of the aquatic organisms (Kooi et al. 2018).
Meanwhile, Choi et al. (2018) reported that different shapes of
microplastics caused to intestinal distention to shipshead min-
now, Cyprinodon variegatus, under controlled laboratory
condition. Another concern highlighted by Silva-Cavalcanti
et al. (2017) was that the ingestion incident has also affected
the diversity of food items consumed by fish. In general, the
utilization of metals as catalysts and stabilizers is an absolute
certainty during the production of plastics as inherent load. A
recent study has reported that the metal trace in plastics has yet
to show no immediate threat in food safety and quality (Whitt
et al. 2016). The major concern arises when the trace metals
leach out of decomposed plastics into the aquatic environment
(Munier and Bendell 2018).
The study on adsorption of persistent organic pollutants
and other chemical pollutants to microplastics has recently
raised concerns among the scientific community. The adsorp-
tion of hydrophobic organic chemicals (Lee et al. 2014), poly-
cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and polychlorinated biphenyls
(Bakir et al. 2014; Rochman et al. 2013; Velzeboer et al. 2014)
to the different particles of plastic polymers has been reported
by many studies. Microplastics have also been indicated as a
vector for heavy metal in the aquatic environment. Brennecke
et al. (2016) has demonstrated that virgin polypropylene (PP)
and aged polyvinyl chloride (PVC) microplastics can sorb
copper (Cu) and zinc (Zn) in the marine environment. Wang
et al. (2017a) have recently investigated the interaction be-
tween heavy metals and surface texture in surface sediments
from the littoral zone at Beijiang River. Based on their inves-
tigation, although the majority of metals carried by
microplastic particles derived from the inherent load, some
metals were adsorbed from the environment. Therefore, a fur-
ther risk associated with microplastic ingestion is that other
contaminants adsorbed onto the particle’s surface could be
released in the organisms’ body and potentially cause toxicity
effects (Lu et al. 2016).
The toxicological effects of microplastic based on the dif-
ferent shapes, sizes, and polymers have been reported by a few
studies. Lu et al. (2016) utilized 5 and 20 μm of polystyrene
bead sizes to investigate its adverse effects to zebrafish, Danio
rerio. Their study found that all bead sizes were accumulated
in the gut and gills, while only one size of beads (5 μm)
accumulated in its liver. As a result, D. rerio has shown
Environ Sci Pollut Res
oxidative stress, inflammatory response, and lipid
accumulation in its liver. Meanwhile, de Sá et al. (2015) have
simultaneously exposed 30 polyethylene microspheres (420
to 500-μm diameter) and Artemia nauplii to be juveniles of
the common goby, Pomatoschistus microps. The findings re-
vealed that the predatory performance of this estuarine fish has
reduced to 65% and experienced confusion with prey.
Gap in research
The spatial variability of microplastics has been documented
by numerous studies worldwide (Castañeda et al. 2014; Mani
et al. 2015). The study of microplastic abundance based on the
spatiotemporal scale has only received little attention (Han
et al. 2020; Rodrigues et al. 2018; Yonkos et al. 2014; Zhao
et al. 2015). Indeed, the study on the changes of microplastic
pollution levels over time is vital as to gain insight into the
severity and persistence of this pollutant towards the environ-
ment (Fan et al. 2019; Shim et al. 2018). Only a few studies
have reported on the relationships between microplastic
abundance and other environmental factors, for example,
seasons and water quality. Horton et al. (2018) suggested that
both physiological traits of fish and environmental factors
may be equally important in influencing ingestion of
microplastics by fish. Thus, this indicated that the ingestion
could be a result of a complex combination of different fac-
tors. Further investigation of the residence time of
microplastics in the GI tract is also needed as it can affect
other wildlife.
Conclusion and perspectives
The investigation of microplastics in the environment is a
highly dynamic area of research which combines other disci-
plines such as hydrology, oceanography, modeling, environ-
mental monitoring, biology, chemistry, and toxicology.
Similar to marine environments, the occurrence of
microplastics in freshwaters has also caused great concerns
from the public. Nevertheless, the current information on the
abundance and impact of microplastics in freshwater systems
is still limited compared to that of marine environments.
Based on the present review, microplastics are found in dif-
ferent freshwater systems such as lakes and rivers. Indeed,
microplastics can float in surface water or be buoyant in the
water column. The denser microplastics will sink at the bot-
tom sediment. It suggests that freshwaters could be a pool of
microplastics and the source of plastic pollution to the ocean.
Thus, the occurrence of microplastics from freshwaters also
deserves more attention. Microplastics can be release to
aquatic environments via different pathways such as
WWTP, sludge (biosolids), extreme events, incidental release
Environ Sci Pollut Res
(during tyre wear), industrial processes, and deposition of
fibers from the atmosphere. The continuing release of
microplastics in the freshwater environment indicates that this
particle may become an increasingly significant pollutant in
the future. Different methods are used to quantify and identify
microplastics from the complex environmental samples.
Therefore, the development and verification of standardized
and robust methods are essential. Hence, the data from dif-
ferent regions are of more comparable and reliable.
Meanwhile, the risk related to humans that consume organ-
isms had ingested microplastics remain unknown. The im-
pacts of microplastics on freshwater animals at present are
also limited. More research thus are needed to further analyze
its impact especially in areas of (1) occurrence, fate, and
transport of microplastics based on temporal trends, environ-
mental factors, and physiological traits of organisms, (2)
microplastic ingestion based on visual and chemical cues,
and (3) toxicity of microplastics and other chemical pollutants
in the environment and its implication to aquatic organisms
and human health.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia for providing PhD scholarship and research centre grant Vot No.
R.J130000.7801.5F279.
Authors’ contributions SS and SA designed the study. SS wrote the
article. SA, MIMS, and MHJ commented on draft versions of the article.
Availability of data NA
Compliance with ethical standards
Competing interests The authors declared that they have no competing
interests.
Ethical approval NA
Consent to participate NA
Consent to publish NA
References
Anderson JC, Park BJ, Palace VP (2016) Microplastics in aquatic envi-
ronments: implications for Canadian ecosystems. Environ Pollut
218:269–280
Anderson PJ, Warrack S, Langen V, Challis JK, Hanson ML, Rennie MD
(2017) Microplastic contamination in lake Winnipeg, Canada.
Environ Pollut 225:223–231
Atema J, Brönmark C, Hansson LA (2012) Aquatic odor dispersal fields:
opportunities and limits of detection, communication and naviga-
tion. In: Bronmack C, Lars-Anders H (ed) Chemical Ecology in
Aquatic Systems Oxford University Press, New York, pp.1–18
Avio CG, Gorbi S, Regoli F (2015) Experimental development of a new
protocol for extraction and characterization of microplastics in fish
tissues: first observations in commercial species from Adriatic Sea.
Mar Environ Res 111:18–26
Bakir A, Rowland SJ, Thompson RC (2014) Enhanced desorption of
persistent organic pollutants from microplastics under simulated
physiological conditions. Environ Pollut 185:16–23
Barboza LGA, Dick Vethaak A, Lavorante BRBO, Lundebye AK,
Guilhermino L (2018) Marine microplastic debris: an emerging is-
sue for food security, food safety and human health. Mar Pollut Bull
133:336–348
Barrows AP, Neumann CA, Berger ML, Shaw SD (2017) Grab vs. neus-
ton tow net: a microplastic sampling performance comparison and
possible advances in the field. Anal Methods 9(9):1446–1453
Bellas J, Martínez-Armental J, Martínez-Cámara A, Besada V, Martínez-
Gómez C (2016) Ingestion of microplastics by demersal fish from
the Spanish Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts. Mar Pollut Bull
109(1):55–60
Bessa F, Barría P, Neto JM, Frias JPGL, Otero V, Sobral P, Marques JC
(2018) Occurrence of microplastics in commercial fish from a nat-
ural estuarine environment. Mar Poll Bull 128:575–584
Bordós G, Urbányi B, Micsinai A, Kriszt B, Palotai Z, Szabó I, Hantosi Z,
Szoboszlay S (2019) Identification of microplastics in fish ponds
and natural freshwater environments of the Carpathian basin
Europe. Chemosphere 216:110–116
Brennecke D, Duarte B, Paiva F, Caçador I, Canning-Clode J (2016)
Microplastics as vector for heavy metal contamination from the
marine environment. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 178:189–195
Browne MA, Crump P, Niven SJ, Teuten E, Tonkin A, Galloway T,
Thompson R (2011) Accumulation of microplastic on shorelines
woldwide: sources and sinks. Environ Sci Tech 45(21):9175–9179
Budimir S, Setälä O, Lehtiniemi M (2018) Effective and easy to use
extraction method shows low numbers of microplastics in offshore
planktivorous fish from the northern Baltic Sea. Mar Pollut Bull
127:586–592
Campbell SH, Williamson PR, Hall BD (2017) Microplastics in the gas-
trointestinal tracts of fish and the water from an urban prairie creek.
Facets 2:395–409
Castañeda RA, Avlijas S, Simard MA, Ricciardi A, Smith R (2014)
Microplastic pollution in St. Lawrence River sediments. Can J
Fish Aquat Sci 71(12):1767–1771
Cheung PK, Fok L, Hung PL, Cheung LTO (2018) Spatio-temporal
comparison of neustonic microplastic density in Hong Kong waters
under the influence of the Pearl River Estuary. Sci Total Environ
628–629:731–739
Choi JS, Jung YJ, Hong NH, Hong SH, Park JW (2018) Toxicological
effects of irregularly shaped and spherical microplastics in a marine
teleost, the sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus). Mar
Pollut Bull 129(1):231–240
Cole M, Lindeque PK, Fileman ES, Galloway TS, Webb H, Halsband C
(2014) Isolation of microplastics in biota-rich seawater samples and
marine organisms. Sci Rep 4(4528):3–10
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 Environ 643:1257–
1264
Corcoran PL (2015) Benthic plastic debris in marine and fresh water
environments. Environ Sci Process Impacts 8:1363e1369
Costa MF, Barletta M (2015) Microplastics in coastal and marine envi-
ronments of the western tropical and sub-tropical Atlantic Ocean.
Environ Sci-Proc Imp 17(11):1868–1879
de Sá LC, Luís LG, Guilhermino L (2015) Effects of microplastics on
juveniles of the common goby (Pomatoschistus microps): confusion
with prey, reduction of the predatory performance and efficiency,
and possible influence of developmental conditions. Environ Poll
196:359–362
Devriese LI, De Witte B, Vethaak AD, Hostens K, Leslie HA (2017)
Bioaccumulation of PCBs from microplastics in Norway lobster

(Nephrops norvegicus): an experimental study. Chemosphere 186:
10–16
Di M, Wang J (2018) Microplastics in surface waters and sediments of the
Three Gorges Reservoir, China. Sci Total Environ 616:1620–1627
Ding L, Mao R, Guo X, Yang X, Zhang Q, Yang C (2019) Microplastics
in surface waters and sediments of the Wei River, in the northwest of
China. Sci Total Environ 667:427–434
Dris R, Gasperi J, Rocher V, Saad M, Tassin B, Renault N (2018)
Microplastic contamination in an urban area: a case study in
Greater Paris. Environ Chem 12(5):592–599
Dris R, Gasperi J, Rocher V, Saad M, Renault N, Tassin B (2015)
Microplastic contamination in an urban area: a case study in
Greater Paris. Environ Chem 12(5):592–599
Eerkes-Medrano D, Thompson RC, Aldridge DC (2015) Microplastics in
freshwater systems: a review of the emerging threats, identification
of knowledge gaps and prioritisation of research needs. Water Res
75:63–82
Elert AM, Becker R, Duemiche E, Eisentraut P, Falkenhagen J, Sturm H,
Braun U (2017) Comparison of different methods for MP detection:
what can we learn from them, and why asking the right question
before measurements matters? Environ Pollut 231:1256–1264
Eo S, Hong SH, Song YK, Han GM, Shim WJ (2019) Spatiotemporal
distribution and annual load of microplastics in the Nakdong River,
South Korea. Water Res 160:228–237
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(1–2):177–182
Estahbanati S, Fahrenfeld NL (2016) Influence of wastewater treatment
plant discharges on microplastic concentrations in surface water.
Chemosphere 162:277–284
Fahrenkamp-Uppenbrink J (2018) Microplastics everywhere. Sci
360(6384):44–46
Fan Y, Zheng K, Zhu Z, Guangshi C, Peng X (2019) Distribution, sed-
imentary record, and persistence of microplastics in the Pearl River
catchment, China. Environ Pollut 251:862–870
Fazey FMC, Ryan PG (2016) Biofouling on buoyant marine plastics: an
experimental study into the effect of size on surface longevity.
Environ Pollut 210:354–360
Ferreira M, Thompson J, Paris A, Rohindra D, Rico C (2020) Presence of
microplastics in water, sediments and fish species in an urban coastal
environment of Fiji, a Pacific small island and developing state. Mar
Pollut 153(110991):110991
Fischer EK, Paglialonga L, Czech E, Tamminga M (2016) Microplastic
pollution in lakes and lake shoreline sediments - a case study on
Lake Bolsena and Lake Chiusi (central Italy). Environ Pollut 213:
648–657
Fischer M, Scholz-Böttcher BM (2017) Simultaneous trace identification
and quantification of common types of microplastics in environmen-
tal samples by pyrolysis-gas chromatography–mass spectrometry.
Environ Sci Tech 51(9):5052–5060
Gatidou G, Arvaniti OS, Stasinakis AS (2019) Review on the occurrence
and fate of microplastics in Sewage Treatment Plants. J Hazard
Mater 367:504–512
Geyer R, Jambeck JR, Law KL (2017) Production, use, and fate of all
plastics ever made. Sci Adv 3(7):e1700782
Green DS, Kregting L, Boots B, Blockley DJ, Brickle P, Da Costa M,
Crowley Q (2018) A comparison of sampling methods for seawater
microplastics and a first report of the microplastic litter in coastal
waters of Ascension and Falkland Islands. Mar Pollut Bull 137:695–
701
Gusmao F, Domenico MD, Amaral ACZ et al (2016) In situ ingestion of
microfibres by meiofauna from sandy beaches. Environ Pollut 216:
584–590
Han M, Niu X, Tang M, Zhang BT, Wang G, Yue W, Kong X, Zhu J
(2020) Distribution of microplastics in surface water of the lower
Yellow River near estuary. Sci Total Environ 707(135601):135601
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Hermsen E, Mintenig SM, Besseling E, Koelmans AA (2018) Quality
criteria for the analysis of microplastic in biota samples: a critical
review. Environ Sci Tech 52(18):10230–10240
Hernandez LM, Yousefi N, Tufenkji N (2017) Are there nanoplastics in
your personal care products? Environ Sci Tech Lett 4(7):280–285
Hidalgo-Ruz V, Thiel M (2012) Microplastics in the marine environment:
a review of the methods used for identification and quantification
cellular effects of microplastics-uptake, fate and pathologies View
project. Environ Sci Tech 46:3060–3075
Hopewell J, Dvorak R, Kosior E (2009) Plastics recycling: challenges and
opportunities. Philos T R Soc B 364(1526):2115–2126
Horton AA, Jürgens MD, Lahive E, van Bodegom PM, Vijver MG
(2018) The influence of exposure and physiology on microplastic
ingestion by the freshwater fish Rutilus rutilus (roach) in the River
Thames, UK. Environ Pollut 236:188–194
Imhof HK, Schmid J, Niessner R, Ivleva NP, Laforsch C (2012) A novel,
highly efficient method for the separation and quantification of plas-
tic particles in sediments of aquatic environments. Limnol
Oceanogr-Meth 10:524–537
Ivar Do Sul JA, Costa MF (2014) The present and future of microplastic
pollution in the marine environment. Environ Pollut 185:352–364
Ivleva NP, Wiesheu AC, Niessner R (2017) Microplastic in aquatic eco-
systems. Angew Chem Int Ed 56(7):1720–1739
Jabeen K, Su L, Li J, Yang D, Tong C, Mu J, Shi H (2017) Microplastics
and mesoplastics in fish from coastal and fresh waters of China.
Environ Pollut 221:141–149
Jambeck JR, Geyer R, Wilcox C, Siegler TR, Perryman M, Andrady A,
Narayan R, Law KL (2015) Plastic waste inputs from land into the
ocean. Sci 347(6223):768–771
Jiang C, Yin L, Wen X, du C, Wu L, Long Y, Liu Y, Ma Y, Yin Q, Zhou
Z, Pan H (2018) Microplastics in sediment and surface water of west
dongting lake and south dongting lake: abundance, source and com-
position. Int J of Env Res Pub He 15(10)
Karlsson TM, Vethaak AD, Almroth BC, Ariese F, van Velzen M,
Hassellöv M, Leslie HA (2017) Screening for microplastics in sed-
iment, water, marine invertebrates and fish: Method development
and microplastic accumulation. Mar Pollut Bull 122(1–2):403–408
Kasumyan AO (2019) The taste system in fishes and the effects of envi-
ronmental variables. J. Fish Biol 95(1):155–178
Klein S (2015) Microplastics in freshwater systems: analysis, occurrence,
and sorption of organic contaminants. Dissertation, Technische
Universität Dresden
Klein S, Dimzon IK, Eubeler J, Knepper TP (2018) Analysis, occurrence,
and degradation of microplastics in the aqueous environment. In:
Wagner M, Lambert S (eds) Freshwater microplastics, vol 58.
Springer, Cham, pp 51–67
Klein S, Worch E, Knepper TP (2015) Occurrence and spatial distribution
of microplastics in river shore sediments of the rhine-main area in
Germany. Environ Sci Technol 49(10):6070–6076
Koelmans AA, Nor NHM, Hermsen E, Kooi M, Mintenig SM, De-
France J (2019) Microplastics in freshwaters and drinking water:
critical review and assessment of data quality. Water Res 155:
410–422
Kooi M, Besseling E, Carolien K, van Wezel PA, Koelmans AA (2018)
Modeling the fate and transport of plastic debris in freshwaters:
review and guidance. In: Wagner M, Lambert S (eds) Freshwater
microplastics, vol 58. Springer, Cham, pp 125–152
Kühn S, van Werven B, van Oyen A, Meijboom A, Bravo Rebolledo EL,
van Franeker JA (2017) The use of potassium hydroxide (KOH)
solution as a suitable approach to isolate plastics ingested by marine
organisms. Mar Pollut Bull 115(1–2):86–90
Lebreton LCM, Zwet JVD, Damsteeg J, Slat B, Andrady A, Reisser J
(2017) River plastic emissions to the world’s oceans. Nat Commun
8:1–10
Lechner A, Keckeis H, Lumesberger-Loisl F, Zens B, Krusch R, Tritthart
M, Glas M, Schludermann E (2014) The Danube so colourful: a
Environ Sci Pollut Res
potpourri of plastic litter outnumbers fish larvae in Europe’s second
largest river. Environ Pollut 188:177–181
Lee H, Shim WJ, Kwon JH (2014) Sorption capacity of plastic debris for
hydrophobic organic chemicals. Sci Total Environ 470:1545–1552
Lenaker PL, Baldwin AK, Corsi SR, Mason SA, Reneau PC, Scott JW
(2019) Vertical distribution of microplastics in the water column and
surficial sediment from the milwaukee river basin to lake michigan.
Environ Sci Technol 53(21):12227–12237
Li J, Liu H, Paul-Chen J (2018) Microplastics in freshwater systems: a
review on occurrence, environmental effects, and methods for
microplastics detection. Water Res 137:362–374
Lima ARA, Costa MF, Barletta M (2014) Distribution patterns of
microplastics within the plankton of a tropical estuary. Environ
Res 132:146–155
Lin L, Zuo LZ, Peng JP, Cai LQ, Fok L, Yan Y, Li HX, Xu XR (2018)
Occurrence and distribution of microplastics in an urban river: a case
study in the Pearl River along Guangzhou City, China. Sci Total
Environ 644:375–381
Lindeque PK, Cole M, Coppock RL, Lewis CN, Miller RZ, Watts AJ,
Wilson-McNeal A, Wright SL, Galloway TS (2020) Are we
underestimating microplastic abundance in the marine environ-
ment? A comparison of microplastic capture with nets of different
mesh-size. Environ Pollut 265:114721
Löder MGJ, Gerdts, G (2015) Methodology used for the detection and
identification of microplastics—A critical appraisal. In: Bergmann
M., GutowL., Klages M. (eds) Marine Anthropogenic Litter.
Springer, Cham
Lorenz C (2014) Detection of microplastics in marine sediments of the
German Coast via FT-IR spectroscopy. Dissertation, Universität
Rostock
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(7):
4054–4060
Mani T, Hauk A, Walter U, Burkhardt-Holm P (2015) Microplastics
profile along the Rhine River. Sci Rep 5:1–7
Mizraji R, Ahrendt C, Perez-Venegas D, Vargas J, Pulgar J, Aldana M,
Patricio Ojeda F, Duarte C, Galbán-Malagón C (2017) Is the feeding
type related with the content of microplastics in intertidal fish gut?
Mar Pollut Bull 116(1–2):498–500
Moore CJ, Lattin GL, Zellers AF (2011) Quantity and type of plastic
debris flowing from two urban rivers to coastal waters and beaches
of Southern California. Revista RGCI-J Integr Coast Zone Manag
11(1):65–73
Morais S (2017) The physiology of taste in fish: potential implications for
feeding stimulation and gut chemical sensing. Rev Fish Sci Aquac
25(2):133–149
Munier B, Bendell LI (2018) Macro and micro plastics sorb and desorb
metals and act as a point source of trace metals to coastal ecosys-
tems. PloS One 13(2):e0191759
Neves D, Sobral P, Ferreira JL, Pereira T (2015) Ingestion of
microplastics by commercial fish off the Portuguese coast. Mar
Pollut Bull 101:119–126
Nuelle MT, Dekiff JH, Remy D, Fries E (2014) A new analytical ap-
proach for monitoring microplastics in marine sediments. Environ
Pollut 184:161–169
Ory NC, Gallardo C, Lenz M, Thiel M (2018) Capture, swallowing, and
egestion of microplastics by a planktivorous juvenile fish. Environ
Polluti 240:566–573
Peng G, Xu P, Zhu B, Bai M, Li D (2018) Microplastics in freshwater
river sediments in Shanghai, China: a case study of risk assessment
in mega-cities. Environ Pollut 234:448–456
Peng G, Zhu B, Yang D, Su L, Shi H, Li D (2017) Microplastics in
sediments of the Changjiang Estuary, China. Environ Pollut 225:
283–290
Peters CA, Bratton SP (2016) Urbanization is a major influence on
microplastic ingestion by sunfish in the Brazos River Basin,
Central Texas, USA. Environ Pollut 210:380–387
Phillips MB, Bonner TH (2015) Occurrence and amount of microplastic
ingested by fishes in watersheds of the Gulf of Mexico. Mar Pollut
Bull 100(1):264–269
Piringer OG, Baner AL (2008). Plastic packaging materials for food:
barrier function, mass transport, quality assurance, and legislation.
John Wiley & Sons, Germany
Qu S, Guo Y, Ma Z et al (2019). Implications of China’s foreign waste
ban on the global circular economy. Resour Conserv Recycl 144:
252–255
Qin Y, Wang Z, Li W, Chang X, Yang J, Yang F (2019) Microplastics in
the sediment of Lake Ulansuhai of Yellow River Basin, China.
Water Environ Res 92(6):829–839
Roch S, Brinker A (2017) Rapid and efficient method for the detection of
microplastic in the gastrointestinal tract of fishes. Environ Sci
Technol 51(8):4522–4530
Roch S, Walter T, Ittner LD, Friedrich C, Brinker A (2019) A systematic
study of the microplastic burden in freshwater fishes of south-
western Germany - are we searching at the right scale? Sci Total
Environ 689:1001–1011
Roch S, Friedrich C, Brinker A (2020) Uptake routes of microplastics in
fishes: practical and theoretical approaches to test existing theories.
Sci Rep 10(1):1–12
Rochman CM, Hoh E, Kurobe T, Teh SJ (2013) Ingested plastic transfers
hazardous chemicals to fish and induces hepatic stress. Sci Rep 3:
3263
Rodrigues MO, Abrantes N, Gonçalves FJM, Nogueira H, Marques JC,
Gonçalves AMM (2018) Spatial and temporal distribution of
microplastics in water and sediments of a freshwater system
(Antuã River, Portugal). Sci Total Environ 633:1549–1559
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(1):55–60
Sarijan S, Azman S, Mohd Said MI, Lee MH (2019) Ingestion of
microplastics by commercial fish in Skudai River, Malaysia.
EnvironmentAsia 12(3)
Sarijan S, Azman S, Said MIM, Andu Y, Zon NF (2018) Microplastics in
sediment from Skudai and Tebrau river, Malaysia: a preliminary
study. In MATEC Web of Conferences, EDP Sciences
Savoca MS, Tyson CW, McGill M, Slager CJ (2017) Odours from ma-
rine plastic debris induce food search behaviours in a forage fish.
Proc. Royal Soc. 284(1860):20171000
Schmidt C, Krauth T, Wagner S (2017) Export of plastic debris by rivers
into the sea. Environ Sci Technol 51(21):12246–12253
Sharma VP, Singh RL, Singh RP (2017) Degradable polymers and plas-
tics of the future: steps toward environmental sustainability, regula-
tions, and safety aspects. In: Singh R (ed) Principles and applications
of environmental biotechnology for a sustainable future. Springer,
Singapore, pp 467–487
Sanchez W, Bender C, Porcher JM (2014) Wild gudgeons (Gobio gobio)
from French rivers are contaminated by microplastics: preliminary
study and first evidence. Environ Res 128:98–100
Shim WJ, Sang HH, Eo S (2018) Marine microplastics: abundance, dis-
tribution, and composition. In: Zeng EY (ed) Microplastic contam-
ination in aquatic environments an emerging matter of environmen-
tal urgency. Elsevier, Netherlands, pp 1–26
Shruti VC, Jonathan MP, Rodriguez-Espinosa PF, Rodríguez-González F
(2019) Microplastics in freshwater sediments of Atoyac River basin,
Puebla City, Mexico. Sci Total Environ 654:154–163
Silva-Cavalcanti JS, Silva JDB, de-França EJ, Araújo MCB, Gusmão F
(2017) Microplastics ingestion by a common tropical freshwater
fishing resource. Environ Pollut 221:218–226
Slootmaekers B, Catarci Carteny C, Belpaire C, Saverwyns S, Fremout
W, Blust R, Bervoets L (2019) Microplastic contamination in

gudgeons (Gobio gobio) from Flemish rivers (Belgium). Environ
Pollut 244:675–684
Sruthy S, Ramasamy EV (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
Su L, Nan B, Hassell KL, Craig NJ, Pettigrove V (2019) Microplastics
biomonitoring in Australian urban wetlands using a common nox-
ious fish (Gambusia holbrooki). Chemosphere 228:65–74
Su L, Xue Y, Li L, Yang D, Kolandhasamy P, Li D, Shi H (2016)
Microplastics in Taihu Lake, China. Environ Pollut 216:711–719
Tagg AS, Sapp M, Harrison JP, Ojeda JJ (2015) Identification and quan-
tification of microplastics in wastewater using focal plane array-
based reflectance micro-FT-IR imaging. Anal Chem 87(12):6032–
6040
Thiele CJ, Hudson MD, Russell AE (2019) Evaluation of existing
methods to extract microplastics from bivalve tissue: Adapted
KOH digestion protocol improves filtration at single-digit pore size.
Mar Pollut Bull 142:384–393
Thompson RC, Olsen Y, Mitchell RP et al (2004) Lost at sea: where is all
the plastic? Science 304(5672):838
Toumi H, Abidli S, Bejaoui M (2019) Microplastics in freshwater envi-
ronment: the first evaluation in sediments from seven water streams
surrounding the lagoon of Bizerte (Northern Tunisia). Environ Sci
Pollut Res 26(14):14673–14682
Uurasjärvi E, Hartikainen S, Setälä O, Lehtiniemi M, Koistinen A (2020)
Microplastic concentrations, size distribution, and polymer types in
the surface waters of a northern European lake. Water Environ Res
92(1):149–156
Van Cauwenberghe L, Devriese L, Galgani F, Robbens J, Janssen CR
(2015) Microplastics in sediments: a review of techniques, occur-
rence and effects. Mar Environ Res 111:5–17
Vaughan R, Turner SD, Rose NL (2017) Microplastics in the sediments
of a UK urban lake. Environ Pollut 229:10–18
Velzeboer I, Kwadijk CJAF, Koelmans AA (2014) Strong sorption of
PCBs to nanoplastics, microplastics, carbon nanotubes, and fuller-
enes. Environ Sci Technol 48(9):4869–4876
Vermaire JC, Pomeroy C, Herczegh SM, Haggart O, Murphy M (2017)
Microplastic abundance and distribution in the open water and sed-
iment of the Ottawa River, Canada, and its tributaries. Facets 2(1):
301–314
Wagner M, Scherer C, Alvarez-Muñoz D et al (2014) Microplastics in
freshwater ecosystems: what we know and what we need to know.
Environ Sci Eur 26(1):1–9
Wang G, Lu J, Tong Y, Liu Z, Zhou H, Xiayihazi N (2020) Occurrence
and pollution characteristics of microplastics in surface water of the
Manas River Basin, China. Sci Total Environ 710:136099
Wang J, Peng J, Tan Z, Gao Y, Zhan Z, Chen Q, Cai L (2017a)
Microplastics in the surface sediments from the Beijiang River lit-
toral zone: composition, abundance, surface textures and interaction
with heavy metals. Chemosphere 171:248–258
Wang Z, Qin Y, Li W, Yang W, Meng Q, Yang J (2019) Microplastic
contamination in freshwater: first observation in Lake Ulansuhai,
Yellow River Basin, China. Environ Chem Lett 17(4):1821–1830
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Wang L, Zhang J, Hou S, Sun H (2017b) A simple method for quantify-
ing polycarbonate and polyethylene terephthalate microplastics in
environmental samples by liquid chromatography–tandem mass
spectrometry. Environ Sci Tech Lett 4(12):530–534
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
Watkins L, McGrattan S, Sullivan PJ, Walter MT (2019) The effect of
dams on river transport of microplastic pollution. Sci. Total Environ
664:834–840
Wen X, Du C, Xu P et al (2018) Microplastic pollution in surface sedi-
ments of urban water areas in Changsha, China: abundance, com-
position, surface textures. Mar Pollut Bull 136:414–423
Whitt M, Brown W, Danes JE, Vorst KL (2016) Migration of heavy
metals from recycled polyethylene terephthalate during storage
and microwave heating. J Plast Film Sheet 32(2):189–207
Wong SL, Ngadi N, Abdullah TAT, Inuwa IM (2015). Current state and
future prospects of plastic waste as source of fuel: A review. Renew
Sust Energ Rev 50:1167–1180
Woodall LC, Sanchez-Vidal A, Canals M et al (2014) The deep sea is a
major sink for microplastic debris. R Soc Open Sci 1(4):40317
Wright SL, Thompson RC, Galloway TS (2013) The physical impacts of
microplastics on marine organisms: a review. Environ Pollut 178:
483–492
Xiong X, Zhang K, Chen X, Shi H, Luo Z, Wu C (2018) Sources and
distribution of microplastics in China’s largest inland lake – Qinghai
Lake. Environ Pollut 235:899–906
Xiong X, Tu Y, Chen X, Jiang X, Shi H, Wu C, Elser JJ (2019) Ingestion
and egestion of polyethylene microplastics by goldfish (Carassius
auratus): influence of color and morphological features. Heliyon
5(12):e03063
Yan M, Nie H, Xu K, He Y, Hu Y, Huang Y, Wang J (2019) Microplastic
abundance, distribution and composition in the Pearl River along
Guangzhou city and Pearl River estuary, China. Chemosphere 217:
879–886
Yin L, Wen X, Du C et al (2020) Comparison of the abundance of
microplastics between rural and urban areas: a case study from
East Dongting Lake. Chemosphere 244:125486
Yin L, Jiang C, Wen X, du C, Zhong W, Feng Z, Long Y, Ma Y (2019)
Microplastic pollution in surface water of urban lakes in Changsha,
China. Int J Env Res Pub He 16(9):1650
Yonkos LT, Friede E, Perez-Reyes AC, Ghosal S, Arthur CD (2014)
Microplastics in four estuarine rivers in the Chesapeake Bay,
USA. Environ Sci Technol 48(24):14195–14202
Yuan W, Liu X, Wang W, Di M, Wang J (2019) Microplastic abundance,
distribution and composition in water, sediments, and wild fish from
Poyang Lake, China. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 170:180–187
Zhao S, Zhu L, Li D (2015) Microplastic in three urban estuaries, China.
Environ Pollut 206:597–604
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.