Marine Pollution Bulletin 140 (2019) 188–197

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Pollution Bulletin

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

Review

Marine microfiber pollution: A review on present status and future T

challenges
⁎
Sunanda Mishra, Chandi charan Rath, Alok Prasad Das
Department of Life Science, Rama Devi Women's University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Microfibers are emerging pollutants with widespread distribution in the environment and have adverse ecolo-
Microfibers gical impacts. Approximately 2 million tonnes of microfibers are released into the ocean every year from various
Generation sources, of which 700,000 micro fleeces are released from each garment through domestic laundry. Microfibers
Pollution are the major marine pollutant throughout the world estimating 13 million tonnes of coastal synthetic fabric
Health hazards
waste entering the ocean each year, out of which 2.5 million tonnes enter through adjoining rivers. It is an-
Treatment
ticipated that, to date, 1.5 million trillion of microfibers are present in the ocean. Microfibers are mistakenly
ingested by marine animals and cause hazardous effects to aquatic species. Microfiber treatment techniques are
under progress for efficient control of this pollutant. This article focuses on global microfiber generation and its
sources, pathway of its entry into the environment and food chain, potential threat to aquatic animals and
humans, present treatment technologies, and future challenges.

1. Introduction
Microfibers, which are tiny threads of polyester, nylon, acrylic, and
other synthetic textiles (Henry et al., 2018) released from the process of
laundering, of diameter less than 10 μm and approximately 1/100th of
the diameter of the human hair was first reported by the ecologist Mark
Browne (Cole et al., 2011). Microfibers are secondary microplastics that
are mainly released from synthetic garments during washing but do not
have any other use. These microfibers are typically made up of nylon,
polyethylene terephthalate, and polypropylene (Gago et al., 2018). The
amount of microfibers in nature is increasing with time because of the
lack of their disintegration or degradation. Several recent studies re-
vealed the omnipresence of microfibers in various parts of the atmo-
sphere including various water sources, sludge, sediments of rivers,
oceans, and top soil. Most of the microfibers found in the ocean are
released from textile industries, with other key sources including indoor
and outdoor laundering, domestic drainages, direct dumping off of
waste garments inside the rivers (Almroth et al., 2017). A schematic
diagram of various sources of microfiber pollution (Carr, 2017) is re-
presented in Fig. 1.
Polyester is the dominant microfiber pollutant among all marine
environment pollutants. The amount of polyester production increased
annually from 5.3 million tonnes in 1980 to 70 million tonnes in 2018.
The rate of microfibers released into the marine environment increased
by 15% in 2 years (Browne et al., 2011). Almost 700,000 micro fleeces
are shed per garment through domestic laundering and 1900 fleeces per
every wash. Approximately 2 million tonnes of microfibers are released
into the ocean every year (Boucher and Friot, 2017). As per the reports
of International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) 2017, ap-
proximately 2 g of microfibers are released whenever synthetic jackets
are washed, and of that, 40% microfibers enter into the water bodies.
Table 1 represents different fractions of synthetic fabrics in the ocean.
Europe and Central Asia alone are throwing away, which is equal to
microplastics from 54 plastic bags per person weekly, into the ocean
(Brodde, 2017). Asia has the most remarkable synthetic fiber produc-
tion for clothes. Approximately 69% of total polyester fiber production
is from China, and more than 80% are jointly produced by China, India,
and South East Asia (Henry et al., 2018). It is estimated that globally 8
million metric tonnes of plastics per annum are directly thrown into the
ocean. China, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, and Sri Lanka together
contribute 60% of the plastic pollution in the ocean (Johnston and
Ketkar, 2017). The amounts of microfibers produced by different
countries are mentioned in Table 2, and the schematic representation is
provided in (Henry et al., 2018) Fig. 2.
Despite many advantages, synthetic fabrics are nonrenewable and
nonbiodegradable. When these synthetic fibers are washed off, tiny
fragments of fabrics are released into drains and end up on the coast-
lines of densely populated areas (Tran, 2017). The main sources of

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: alok1503@gmail.com (A.P. Das).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.01.039
Received 20 November 2018; Received in revised form 18 January 2019; Accepted 18 January 2019
0025-326X/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
S. Mishra et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 140 (2019) 188–197

Fig. 1. Primary sources of microfiber pollution.

Table 1
Types of synthetic microfiber pollutants present in the ocean.
Sl. no. Different kinds of fabrics Sources Percentage References

1 Polyester Textile industry 56% Browne et al., 2011

2 Acrylic Textile industry 23% Almroth et al., 2017
3 Polypropylene Textile industry 7% Browne et al., 2011
4 polyethene Textile industry 6% Browne et al., 2011
5 Polyamide Textile industry 3% Almroth et al., 2017

Table 2
List of major microfiber polluting countries.
Sl. No. Countries MT/year Fabric types Sources Reference

1 China 9.17 Polyester Textile industry, Plastic products, Laundering, Henry et al., 2018
Rayon plastic bags
Nylon
2 Indonesia 3.5 Polyester Apparel industry, laundering Johnston and Ketkar,
2017
3 USA 3 Nylon, polyamide fibers, non- cellulosic fibers, polyester fibers, non- Washing of all type of Synthetic garments Miller et al., 2017
cellulosic organic fibers, polyolefin fibers, rayon, acetate fibers
4 Srilanka 2 Polyester Textile industry, Laundering Johnston and Ketkar,
2017
5 India 0.5 Polyester, Nylon, Synthetic woolen Apparel industry, personal care products, tyres and Henry et al., 2018
various anthropogenic activities

microfiber pollution are household laundering, textile industry, land-
fills located near the water source, domestic drainages, and dumping off
of used clothes in rivers and oceans. Synthetic microfiber particles are
highly dangerous, as they are prone to contaminate the food chain and
many aquatic lives are affected by this type of pollutant (Bal et al.,
2018; Mohanty et al., 2018). Microfibers are simply consumed by fish
and other marine animals owing to their tiny size. These small
microfiber particles are then deposited in the intestine of the marine
animals. Larger animals that feed on this seafood, which are polluted
with these microfibers, can be badly affected. Fish, shellfish, and other
large oceanic animals mistakenly take up the microfiber particles as
food (Loki, 2016). Microfibers are absorbed in the tissue of aquatic
animals, and we consume this part as food. Similarly, several birds that
are reliant on little fishes are inadvertently ingesting these microfibers

189
S. Mishra et al.
12
Microfiber production in Metric Tonnes per year
10
Leading microfiber polluting countries
Fig. 2. Leading microfiber polluting countries.
(Boddy, 2017). Microfibers in water bodies can be the basis of different
problems such as esthetic problem, entanglement, etc. It is estimated
that shellfish consume an average of 11,000 microplastic pieces an-
nually (Cauwenberghe and Janssen, 2014). In another study, 83% of
fish caught from a river in Brazil contained plastics, especially with
microfibers (Silva-Cavalcanti et al., 2017). Not only the fish that we eat,
but also table salt is contaminated with microfibers (Yang et al., 2015).
An even more dreadful truth is that microplastic fragments were ob-
served in traces in 83% of drinking water samples tested (Kosuth et al.,
2017). The flying fleeces of microfibers inhaled by humans deposit in
the lung tissue and may lead to tumors. Finally, the fish or other sea-
food taken up by humans causes many diseases linked with hormonal
disruption, reproductive problems, nervous tissue, liver and kidney
damage, etc. (Lamichhane, 2018) because of microfiber exposure. Some
of the past studies have shown that respiratory inflammation, pul-
monary fibrosis, and cancer can also be due to regular and prolonged
exposures (Carr, 2017). Although public consciousness and better
consumer education will go a long way in making people aware of the
problem of microplastic and microfiber pollution, there needs to be
more research into fabrics that are more environmental friendly (Das
et al., 2011; Ghosh and Das, 2018). However, the microfiber problem
has created an opportunity for the development of some novel solu-
tions. Products such as Guppy Friend Bag (Gear of the Future, 2016),
developed by Alexander Nolte along with a group of surfers and skaters
in Berlin, and Cora balls (Rozalia Project, 2017) developed by Rachael
Miller, are aimed at filtering the microfibers. The company claims that
these microscopic fibers released from textiles during washing can be
easily filtered out using Guppy Friend filters, which is a self-cleaning
specially designed fabric bag. Various studies focus on analyzing and
quantifying the shedding from synthetic fabrics and how to get rid of
the problems that arise due to microfiber pollution. The issue of mi-
crofiber pollution can be tackled at multiple levels – the companies that
produce plastic fabrics, the clothing companies that use and sell pro-
ducts made out of synthetics, consumers themselves, washing machine
companies, municipal wastewater treatment plants, and more (Graham
and Thompson, 2018). In some ways, this means that there are many
opportunities to collaborate and approach this issue and make a dif-
ference. It would be of significant importance to develop an improved
treatment technology that would retain these tiny pieces of synthetic
microfibers entering the ocean.
This article focuses on universal microfiber generation and its
190
Marine Pollution Bulletin 140 (2019) 188–197
sources, pathway of its entry into the environment and food chain,
probable threat to aquatic animals and humans, present treatment
technologies, and future scopes.
2. Synthetic fabric production
Synthetic fabrics such as nylon, acrylic, and polyester are produced
from various harmful chemicals. Customers prefer manmade clothes
rather than cotton because of its strength, stain resistance, softness, and
low costs. Changes in fashion trends have noticeable effects on the
synthetic fiber market worldwide. In particular, the sustainability, easy
availability, and low cost of synthetic fibers as compared to natural
fibers also enhance their demands, but the nonbiodegradable nature of
synthetic fibers is creating significant challenges to producers world-
wide. Additionally, synthetic fibers have a low melting point and a high
combustion rate compared to natural fibers; hence, environmental and
safety concerns are some of the limiting factors that obstruct the growth
of the global synthetic fiber market. Special attention has been paid to
add in functional changes in the manufacturing of synthetic fibers,
which will decline the harmful impact on the environment. From the
total global production of textile fibers, 60% of synthetic fibers are
produced, followed by 30% of cotton and 10% of other materials.
Demand for polyester fibers has been increasing globally at the rate of
approximately 7%, and presently, polyester fiber sale accounts for ap-
proximately half of the total global fiber market (Carr, 2017). The an-
nual consumption of synthetic fibers for apparels has increased in a
remarkable manner from 16 to 42 million tonnes during the last dec-
ades. Synthetic fiber consumption accounted for 64.2% of the total
global consumption of fibers (World Apparel fiber consumption survey,
2017). It has been reported that 62.7% of synthetic fibers are consumed
in developing countries and 48.2% in developed countries (Boucher and
Friot, 2017). Sales of synthetic clothing have nearly doubled from 1
trillion dollars in 2001, which is supposed to boost up to 2.1 trillion in
2025 and will be expected to increase up to 20 million tonnes in 2030
(Lamichhane, 2018). The expansion of fashions would not be possible
without synthetic fibers. Synthetic fabrics, mainly polyester, are pre-
sently mostly used as clothes because it is economical and easily
available. Approximately 64,900 metric tonnes of synthetic microfibers
are produced yearly (The Fiber Year, 2017), of which 400 billion square
meters are used to make fabrics. Polyester, among all synthetic fibers, is
used dominantly. Approximately 75 million metric tonnes of polyester
S. Mishra et al.
Table 3
Leading synthetic fabrics producing countries.
Sl. No. Countries Sectors
1 China Textile industry
2 India Fabric industry
3 Taiwan Garment manufacturing industry
4 USA Textile industry
5 Japan Textile industry
1400
1200
Microfiber production in MT
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1970
and 4 million tonnes of nylon are produced annually. The Asia-Pacific
region is leading in both the production and the consumption of
polyester, and the trend is expected to continue over the upcoming
years (Synthetic fiber market analysis, 2017). More than 50 million
tonnes of textile fibers are produced in China alone, and of that, 64.1%
are synthetic fibers (Sheng, 2016). India ranks the second position in
producing synthetic fibers at approximately 8% of the total global
production. Taiwan and the United States are equally positioned in the
third, each measuring for approximately 4% of universal synthetic fiber
production. Africa, the Middle East, and Oceania are the fifth largest
regions in manmade fiber production. The leading synthetic fiber-pro-
ducing countries are listed in Table 3.
3. Global microfiber generation and its sources
The generation of synthetic microfibers is increasing remarkably,
which creates a problem globally. The largest microfiber-releasing re-
gions are India and South Asia, North America and South America,
Europe, China and Central Asia, and Africa (Boucher and Friot, 2017).
The amount of releases can be explained by using a suggested formula I
(Impact) × P (Population) × A (Affluence) = T (Technology efficiency)
(Ehrlich and Holdren, 1971). As we are dependent so much on polyester
for our coordination with latest fashions, it is regarded as one of the
most polluting industries in the world; in terms of both its large pro-
duction and the nonbiodegradable waste it leaves behind (Brodde,
2017). A single piece of synthetic clothing can shed more than 1900
microfibers in one wash. Hence, if we calculate the total discharge of
microfibers every year into water sources, it is equal to approximately
12,331,000,0000 kg.
The quality of the water is worsening because of these micro pol-
lutants. It has been shown that the microfibers appear in large quan-
tities in the river, ocean, and sea. Currently, it is very essential to know
the various sources of its release. Outdoor and indoor laundering are
Marine Pollution Bulletin 140 (2019) 188–197
Global production (tonnes per year) Which fabric References
70.15 Polyester, Nylon Sheng, 2016
7.64 Polyester Almroth et al., 2017
4.9 Polyester Textination Newsline, 2017
3.58 Polyester 2018 State of the U.S. Textile Industry Address, 2018
1 Polyester Robertson, 2018
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Years
Fig. 3. Historical and expected rate of microfiber production.
the major sources of microfiber pollution in various water bodies. Other
causes of synthetic microfibers are nonlaundering fabrics including
flags and sails when undergoing disintegration. Fibers can be observed
on clothing, floors, display monitors, uninterrupted surfaces, and var-
ious cosmetic products. Some of the microfiber particles move toward
water sources from nearby landfills located near the water directly into
the domestic drainage systems, rivers, and oceans (Cole et al., 2011).
These particles are released by the wastewater treatment plants. The
major source of microfibers is the domestic drainage system. Both
natural textile fibers such as wool, linen, and cotton and synthetic
textile fibers such as polyester, nylon, and rayon found in oceans are
liberated as effluents from washing machines. Natural microfibers are
biodegradable. Microfibers released from laundering synthetic textiles
are the primary source of microfibers. Washing of plastic fabrics can
cause 34.8% of release of primary microplastics into the ocean
(Boucher and Friot, 2017). The major sources of microfiber pollution
are fleece jacket, yoga pants, shorts, underwear, etc. Not only the ap-
parel products are the sources of microfibers entering into the ocean,
but also many other industries contributing to this problem are fishing
net, bottle cap, packaging, and plastic bags, whose fragments finally
end up in the ocean. On average, 34.8% microfibers from laundering of
synthetic textiles and 28.3% microfibers from the friction of tires are
released into the ocean (Boucher and Friot, 2017). Other vital sources
of fibers are curtains, furniture, carpet, old interior paint, and mat-
tresses (Brandsma et al., 2014; Rauert et al., 2014). Current studies also
focus on identifying other sources of microfibers. Global microfiber
pollution will continue increasing with the increase in demands for
synthetic clothes. A graphical representation of historical and predicted
global microfiber pollution (Lamichhane, 2018) is represented in Fig. 3.
4. Marine microfiber pollution
Marine environment is the ultimate destination for various
191
S. Mishra et al.
100%
90%
Percentage of tap water samples
contaminated with microfibers
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
USA
Fig. 4. Percentage of tap water samples present in contaminated with microfibers.
anthropogenic pollutants. Microfibers released from synthetic garments
and other apparel products add serious threats to this problem (Miller
et al., 2017). Microfibers are released into the marine environment
through adjoining rivers by different human activities. In a subtle but
insidious way, these microfibers contribute to marine pollution. It is
estimated that in a single laundry wash, approximately 121,465 acrylic,
82,672 polyester, and 22,992 poly-cotton microfibers are released into
the ocean (Resnick, 2018). On a daily basis, 64,000 pounds of micro-
fibers are released into the ocean, and approximately 35% of that is
from synthetic textiles (Varinsky, 2016). These microfibers from do-
mestic drainage move to nearby water treatment units, where up to
50% escape and enter into rivers and oceans. Microfibers are found in
oceans and coastlines (Taylor et al., 2016) as well as freshwater systems
(Wang et al., 2017a, 2017b) worldwide. Microfibers account for ap-
proximately 85% of shoreline anthropogenic debris (Browne et al.,
2011). In a recent study of microplastic pollution, it is estimated that
approximately 150 million microfibers enter into the Atlantic Ocean
every day. Each day, the Hudson River dumps approximately 300
million synthetic microfibers into the Atlantic Ocean, thereby making it
a more harmful pollutant for the marine environment (Miller et al.,
2017). It is estimated that 4 billion fibers per square kilometer are
present in the Indian Ocean sediment sample (Woodall et al., 2014),
and it is reported that in past 50 years, the microfiber pollution has
increased from 15 to 311 million tones. Pollution of the ocean atmo-
sphere by microfibers has acknowledged escalating consideration of
microfibers as a major aspect of marine pollution. Since the 1950s,
manufacturing of synthetic fabrics has increased by 9% annually,
growing into a $700 billion global market. Approximately 5 million
metric tonnes of microfibers enter the oceans annually through textile
industries, domestic drainages, and fragmentation of plastic wastes. In
the marine environment, microfiber particles are highly persistent and
therefore accumulate in different marine ecosystems at growing rates
(Woodall et al., 2014). Presently, approximately 5 trillion microfiber
particles circulate in marine surface waters. Although some microfiber
pollutants enter into the marine environment from maritime opera-
tions, 80% is suspected to originate from terrestrial sources (Smith
et al., 2018). Despite the growing concern over the large quantity,
distribution, and lethal effects of microfiber contamination in the
ocean, the detrimental effect posed by it remains doubtful.
5. Pathway of microfiber entry into the environment and food
chain
Microfiber shedding and releasing from various sources and pollu-
tion caused by these microscopic pollutants is a worthy subject matter
Marine Pollution Bulletin 140 (2019) 188–197
Europe Indonesia Lebanon Uganda Ecuador
Countries
for discussion in the current era, as it not only pollutes the ocean but
also badly affects the aquatic life, and hence the whole ecosystem
(Choudhari, 2018). When we wash synthetic fabrics and clothing, such
as polyester, fleece, nylon, spandex, and others, in washing machines,
these items shed tiny plastic fibers. Any filtration system or municipal
water treatment plant cannot filter these microfibers, as they are very
small (Brannan, 2014). These microfibers along with washing machine
effluents are released into domestic drainage systems and then into the
river, and their ultimate fate is marine water. All the domestic drai-
nages and sludge carrying the microfibers finally release into the river,
and from various rivers, these pollutants are mixed with ocean water.
The small size and low density of microfiber particles result in their
widespread transport and distribution in the ocean water by currents.
Microfibers are deposited on beach and oceanic sediments on the top
layer of the ocean water and in a wide diversity of marine organisms
such as fishes, crabs, mussels, crustaceans, turtles, bivalves, and
mammals.
The synthetic clothes, which we use in our daily life, which are very
comfortable, easily available, and of low cost, contribute to the pollu-
tion of the water sources. The fibers shed while washing and are re-
leased into various water bodies. As a result of the extensive use of
synthetic fabrics and absence of proper treatment techniques, water-
ways and food resources are becoming overburdened with these in-
visible micropollutants. It is estimated that approximately 1.4 trillion
microfiber particles, which are present in the ocean, create various
problems to our biodiversity (Halpern, 2018).
Washing machines, which we use at home, do not have any filtra-
tion system that can filter fibers; hence, they can be easily passed
through the washing machine to the ocean. Synthetic microfibers are
injurious, and they contaminate the food chain. Larger animals can also
be affected by these microfibers, as they ingest small fishes and accu-
mulate toxins in their bodies (Lamichhane, 2018). The gradual increase
in microfiber pollution is expected to cover the ocean surface with a
layer of microfibers, which decreased the oxygen level in water. Mi-
crofiber pollution is not natural but a manmade disaster that causes
pollution and in turn affects the living organisms and the ecosystem. In
fact, microfiber fleeces are the most commonly detected type of debris
in various water bodies and contaminate seafood, table salt, and
drinking water. Recently, in a study, 83% of tap waters in various
countries are found to be contaminated with these microfibers (Shakeri,
2017) which are represented in Fig. 4.
Such widespread contamination raises concerns about potential ef-
fects to wildlife and human health. As an outcome, microfibers are
gradually gaining attention of governments and nongovernmental or-
ganizations, regulators, companies, researchers, scientists, and the
192
S. Mishra et al.
media. A recent study by Philipp Schwabl, along with Environment
Agency Austria and the Medical University of Vienna, tested stool
samples of participants coming from different parts of the world in
search of microplastic particles, and it was found that more than 50% of
world populations have microplastics in their stool and an average of
20 particles of microplastics found in 10 g of excreta.
Microfibers are a small in size as plankton but create a large pro-
blem because of their higher liberations (Nel and Froneman, 2015). The
tiny fragments of microfiber pollutants absorb other toxic pollutants,
and those fragments are mistakenly consumed. While targeting
plankton, aquatic species appear to frequently consume microfibers
unknowingly. In fact, the chemical properties of microfibers may even
cause some organisms like corals to feed on microplastics (Allen et al.,
2017). Studies have shown that species such as zooplankton, coral, fish,
crabs, mussels, whales, and many others ingest microplastics directly
(Cauwenberghe and Janssen, 2014). Planktonnes, which are a chief
food source for aquatic organisms, are mostly affected. These harms
include decreased feeding ability, abnormalities in reproduction, de-
creased nutrition, and poorer health resulting in liver toxicity in fish,
decreased reproductive potential in oysters, and decreased survival and
predator aversion ability in beach hoppers (Sussarellu et al.,
2016;Tosetto et al., 2016).
When the effects of consuming microfibers on human health are
only beginning to be understood, microfiber particles have been shown
to absorb, carry, and retain pollutants (Hankett et al., 2016) and ulti-
mately absorbed by the tissues of animals consuming these pollutants.
Studies that highlight the negative impacts of microfiber ingestion on
marine life and food chains are beginning to emerge. These reports
suggest that microfibers in the ocean collect toxins, pass on to organ-
isms that consume them in the food chain, absorb in their tissues, and
cause many related health problems to marine animals and humans
(Tanaka et al., 2013).
6. Potential threat to aquatic animals and human life
It is observed that no location on the Earth's atmosphere has escaped
microfiber pollution. In reality, despite the distance from land, micro-
fibers are omnipresent in isolated ocean environments, including polar
regions. The most important problem with microfibers is that we cannot
stay away from their entry into the body. These fibers are known to
have adverse impacts on terrestrial to marine ecosystems (Taylor et al.,
2016). The microfibers, which are omnipresent, can be a probable
threat to aquatic animals and humans. As microfibers have the ten-
dency to float on water surface, aquatic animals, directly or indirectly,
come into contact. Ingestion of polyester and rayon microfibers appears
to be common. The plastic debris are taken up by many sea animals
such as snakes, turtles, penguins, seals, sea lions, manatees, otters, fish,
and crustaceans (Kuhn et al., 2015). When these microfibers are present
in abundance in water, they can enter the body of aquatic animals,
thereby blocking their respiratory system, as these particles enter
through gills and the gastrointestinal wall.
6.1. Impact on aquatic animals
Microfibers can also contaminate fish by discharging various
harmful and toxic chemicals into their bodies (Loki, 2016). The inges-
tion of microfibers has been observed in fish, which introduces a mix-
ture of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, notably several polybrominated
diphenyl ethers at higher concentrations into fish (Espinosa et al.,
2016). Fish are highly responsive to chemicals that destroy the endo-
crine system present in their habitats, and exposure to these chemicals
can result in minor changes in their reproductive processes (Yanbin
et al., 2014). Recent studies showed that ingestion of these micro-
pollutants at higher concentrations may alter the functions of the en-
docrine system in adults (Rochman et al., 2014). Intake of microfibers
by marine animals has been reported in fish species, and plastic debris
193
Marine Pollution Bulletin 140 (2019) 188–197
substances are found in the intestine of these fish in the Mediterranean
Sea (Kuhn et al., 2015). As European countries are the highest con-
sumer of shellfish, an intake of up to 11,000 microfiber particles per
year is reported, whereas in countries with low shellfish consumption,
approximately 1800 microfiber particles are consumed per year (Duis
and Coors, 2016). In five shellfish species collected from Persian Gulf,
approximately 4 to 18 microfiber particles per person were detected
(Naji et al., 2018). Shrimp eating alone estimates to approximately 175
microfiber particles per person per year. Regarding consumption of
mussels as food by humans, microfibers were found mostly in two
species of mussels, Mytilus edulis and Mytilus galloprovincialis, collected
from European countries, whereas the number of microfiber particles
varied from four to six fibers per 10 g of mussels collected from Belgium
(Cauwenberghe and Janssen, 2014). In other regions, several in-
vestigations also report the existence of microfibers in marine molluscs
consumed as food by humans. It was demonstrated that 9% microfibers
were present in the gastrointestinal tracts of fish sold at markets in the
USA and 28% microfibers in the fish sold at markets in Indonesia and
approximately 0.5 numbers of fiber pieces per individual fish in sam-
ples from the USA and 1.4 in the Indonesian samples (Rochman et al.,
2015). Microfibers can leach toxic chemicals into the tissue of fish and
other marine animals. These chemicals include fabric finishes, plasti-
cizers, and adhered organic pollutants. Both microfiber particles and
the chemicals associated can lessen feeding and physically damage
various organs, the digestive tract, stomach lining, immune function,
and stymie growth and, in this way, affecting the entire ecosystem in-
cluding the quality of soils (Tutton, 2018).
6.2. Impact on human health
Microplastic particles in drinking water and the air can also affect
humans directly (Smith et al., 2018). The fiber particles and the asso-
ciated chemical constituents transferred through the food chain have an
impact on humans. Phthalates, mainly present in these micropollutants,
lead to breast cancer; damage of the liver, kidneys, and intestines; blood
infection; and reduced oxidative stress molecules in the liver (Meeker
et al., 2009). It is also tested that phthalates, which are present in mi-
crofibers, have harmful effects on the human body, such as the early
onset of puberty, reduced male reproductive system development, im-
paired hormone system function, reproductive and genital defects,
testosterone levels, and decreased sperm count level. Bisphenol A (BPA)
is another chemical present in microfibers and can damage female re-
productive hormones. Other harmful chemicals present in microfibers
can lead to DNA and protein disruption when they enter into our body
(Meeker et al., 2009). Microfiber particles are directly exposed to the
air from landfills, and when we inhale air contaminated with microfiber
particles, these particles get deposited in our lung tissues and lead to
lung inflammation (Tutton, 2018; Das and Mishra, 2010). From the
synthetic carpets, microfiber particles pollute the air along with dust
particles and cause various lung infections when inhaled. The harmful
chemicals used in making synthetic fabrics include fabric finishes,
plasticizers, antiwrinkle finishers, and flame retardants; these chemicals
also include formaldehyde, which is a human carcinogen. Flame re-
tardants have been linked to thyroid disruption, memory and learning
problems, delayed mental and physical development, lower IQ, early
puberty, and reduced fertility. Some chemicals such as Teflon disrupt
normal endocrine activities and reduce immune function, thereby
causing adverse effects on multiple organs and developmental pro-
blems. When the soil is polluted with these microfibers, the earth-
worms, which inhabit in the soil, are also affected, thereby causing gut
inflammation in earthworms and finally leading to death (Das and
Singh, 2011; Ghosh et al., 2015; Robertson, 2018). The hazardous ef-
fects of microfiber pollution on other marine animals are represented in
Table 4.
There is no longer any doubt that microfiber pollution in various
water sources is a troublemaker not only to marine life but also to us. In
S. Mishra et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 140 (2019) 188–197

particular, the microplastic and nanoplastic particles are dangerous;

Cauwenberghe and Janssen, 2014

they are invisible and can be taken up by the organisms at the bottom of

Cauwenberghe et al., 2015

Duis and Coors, 2016
Duis and Coors, 2016
Duis and Coors, 2016
Duis and Coors, 2016
the food chain and accumulate in predators with profound health ef-
fects. Because of these reasons, further studies are required to know the
accurate harmful effects of those microfibers, their sources, and how to
control this pollution at each trophic level (Das et al., 2015). A sche-
matic representation of the possible pathways of microfiber entry into
References

the ocean and its toxicity (Smith et al., 2018) is represented in Fig. 5.

7. Detection and characterization of microfibers

Various detection methods are the pressing need for the ever-
growing pollution of synthetic microfibers and other hazardous pollu-
tants entering the ocean (Kumar et al., 2016; Kumar and Das, 2017; Das
Ingest microfibers through gills, causes blockage in their gills

et al., 2014). Advanced optical, spectroscopic, and microscopic tech-

niques are being investigated for the successful detection of microfibers.
Both Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) and Raman spectroscopy are
used for the quick detection of the presence of microfibers (Bradley
starvation and reproductive issues

et al., 2017). In a recent study by Wagner et al., 2017 microplastic fiber

Rate of feeding decreased
egg size will be reduced

particles were detected through FTIR from the digestive tract by taking
Reduced feeding rate

fish samples from subtropical gyres analysis. In a similar study, mi-

Gut blockage

crofiber particles were detected under a compound microscope from 7

gastrointestinal tracts of fish that were collected from local fishermen
from the Gulf of Santa Elena (Headley, 2017). Microfiber particles were
also observed in traces in ocean fish samples, collected from the
Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, through optical microscopy, scanning
Hazardous effects

electron microscopy, and energy-dispersive analysis using X-ray (Wang

et al., 2017a, 2017b). Other methods to detect the presence of micro-
fibers in water samples include a designed net, called as Manta net, to
collect fibers present in the upper layer of the river and ocean through a
0.3 mm sieve. By the density separation method, microfiber debris can
also be isolated (Masura et al., 2015). Microfibers in edible salts are
detected through the addition of deionized water to the salt, followed
by filtration, sonication, and centrifugation, and these particles can be
observed though optical examination (Karami et al., 2017).
Microfibers present in marine environment
Microfibers present in marine environment
Microfibers present in marine environment
Microfibers present in marine environment
Microfibers in marine environment

7.1. Present treatment technologies

Microfibers in river and ocean

Marine pollution due to synthetic microfibers and other anthro-

pogenic sources is a serious matter of concern and significant treatment
technologies for the removal of these pollutants are of immense im-
portance (Das and Mishra, 2008; Ghosh et al., 2016; Das and Mishra,
2010). Removal of microfibers from contaminated water sources using
current technologies is prohibitively expensive due to high capital ex-
Exposures

penditure and operating expenses. Membrane bioreactor is one of the

developed methods that can remove these pollutants through cross-flow
filtration, but a drawback of this method is that it consumes a high level
of energy. Microfiber particles can also be removed from the water
sample through density separation and centrifugation, but these tech-
niques cannot be employed to filter a large amount of samples. Pata-
gonia and Mermaids Life Project conducted various studies on this
Animals affected by microfibers

microfiber pollution and concluded that the pollution can be controlled

by adhering to some of the following strategies: washing machine
Marine algae

should be loaded fully when washing, liquid detergent should be used,

Hazardous effect of microfiber exposure.

Copepods
lugworm
Mussels

Crabs

washing should be carried out in cold water at low spin speed and for
Fish

shorter time, softeners should be used along with detergents, front load
washing machine should be used, etc. Recently, some products such as
Cora Balls and Guppy Friend Bag were developed to tackle this problem
and control microfiber pollution. If we put a Cora Ball during each
washing machine cycle along with other clothes, it will filter tiny
threads of microfibers and never release the microfibers into domestic
drainage. Cora Ball removes approximately 26% of microfibers from
each laundry load. The most important advantage is that it is reusable;
after each washing machine cycle, we can separate the microfibers that
Table 4

Sl. No.

are entangled in the ball (Ahimsa Eco Solutions, 2018). Another pro-
1
2
3
4
5
6

duct developed as a solution to microfiber pollution is Guppy Friend

194
S. Mishra et al.
Fig. 5. Possible pathways of microfiber entry into ocean and its toxicity.
Bag; it is a synthetic washing bag used to catch micro fleece during each
washing machine cycle. It is a product developed through “STOP!
MICRO WASTE” campaign by a group of German scientists experien-
cing the hazardous effect for a long time (Gear of the Future, 2016).
Additionally, new techniques have been developed by Seabin project to
decrease the marine pollution. They have designed a specific catch-bag
that can capture microplastics and microfiber. Using this catch bag,
18% of microfibers can be captured. It was observed that this catch bag
can filter microplastics but cannot capture microfibers so efficiently
(Halpern, 2018).
8. Conclusion
The presence of microfibers in the marine environment is mainly
from shedding of the fibers and from the crumbling of larger pieces of
plastics and fabrics that are directly thrown into water sources as waste.
These tiny fleeces enter the marine food chain after their release into
the environment. Exclusively, the existence of microfibers is creating
potential threat for oceanic fauna because these microfleeces can enter
the food web through accidental ingestion, and then, from prey to
predators in various food chains, microfibers continue their life cycle.
The physical and structural distinctiveness of the microfiber polymers
plays an important role in estimating how much environmental
warning they create in the marine environment. The growing demands
of synthetic fabrics, large-scale production, consumption, waste gen-
eration, and their resistance to degradation mean that their abundance
is set to amplify. Chronological and current studies regarding
195
Marine Pollution Bulletin 140 (2019) 188–197
microfiber particle pollution in coastal and marine environments need
to be restricted. The presence of these micro beads in the river and
marine water have hazardous impacts on marine animals as well as on
human health, which is currently becoming a censorious issue to be
addressed. Mainly, the presence of microfibers in drinking water and
sea foods reported worldwide requires a huge public concern.
Microfiber particles are more potential threat to the environment be-
cause small pieces of fibers are more liable to be consumed by marine
animals as well as wildlife. On the other hand, solving the microfiber
pollution issue is more challenging than the prohibition of micro beads.
Although a very less volume of microfibers enters into water bodies,
they create a huge problem for all organisms. Strategies that organize
microfiber pollution should focus on effective controlling of the sources
and development of cost-effective and efficient remediation technolo-
gies. Multistep treatment is required, but mainly, wastewater treatment
plants should adopt innovative ideas to deal with this pollution caused
by the sheds from synthetic apparel products. Rigorous efforts are re-
quired for improving waste management programs, emphasizing on the
recycling of the debris, which may lessen the invasion of microfibers
into water bodies. Further research regarding this pollution should
focus on to develop innovative techniques as a solution to this problem.
References
2018 State of the U.S. Textile Industry Address, March 22, 2018. National Council of
Textile Organization(NCTO). Press releases, Recent news, Testimony and Statements,
uncategorized.
Ahimsa Eco Solutions, 2018. Canada, Meet The Cora Ball. (August 17th). https://
S. Mishra et al.
ahimsaeco.com/canada-meet-the-cora-ball/.
Allen, A.S., Seymour, A.C., Rittschof, D., 2017. Chemoreception drives plastic consump-
tion in a hard coral. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 24 (1), 198–205.
Almroth, B.M.C., Aström, L., Roslund, S., Petersson, H., Johansson, M., Persson, N., 2017.
Quantifying shedding of synthetic fibers from textiles; a source of microplastics re-
leased into the environment. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 25 (2), 1191–1199.
Bal, B., Ghosh, S., Das, A.P., 2018. Microbial recovery and recycling of manganese waste
and their future application: a review. Geomicrobiol J. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01490451.2018.1497731.
Boddy, J., 2017. Are we eating our fleece jackets? In: Microfibers Are Migrating Into Field
and Food, . http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/02/06/511843443/.
Boucher, J., Friot, D., 2017. Primary Microplastics in the Oceans: A Global Evaluation of
Sources. 43 IUCN, Switzerland.
Bradley, M., Sukumaran, S., Lowry, S., Woods, S., Aug 01, 2017. Tracking microplastics in
the environment via FT-IR. Microscopy 32 (8), 17–23. http://www.
spectroscopyonline.com/.
Brandsma, S.B., Nijssen, P., Velzen, V., M.J.M., Leslie, H.A., 2014. Microplastics in river
suspended particulate matter and sewage treatment plants. Report R14 (/02), 20.
Brannan, A., 2014. Microplastic traces leaching into food chain. https://www.
earthsfriends.com/microplastic.
Brodde, K., 2017. What are microfibers and why are our clothes polluting the oceans?
https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/6956.
Browne, M.A., Crump, P., Niven, S.J., Teuten, E., Tonkin, A., Galloway, T., Thompson, R.,
2011. Accumulation of microplastic on shorelines worldwide: sources and sinks.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (21), 9175–9179.
Carr, S.A., 2017. Sources and dispersive modes of micro-fibers in the environment. Integr.
Environ. Assess. Manag. 13 (3), 466–469.
Cauwenberghe, V.L., Janssen, C.R., 2014. Microplastics in bivalves cultured for human
consumption. Environ. Pollut. 193, 65–70.
Cauwenberghe, L.V., Devriese, L., Galgani, F., Robbens, J., Janssen, C.R., 2015.
Microplastics in sediments: a review of techniques, occurrence and effects. Mar.
Environ. Res. 111, 5–17.
Choudhari, M., 2018. Microfiber pollution in environment and its impact. Chemarc.com.
https://www.chemarc.com/.../microfiberpollution...impact/
5aec55072d35eb266a4cc3.
Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Halsband, C.S., Galloway, T., 2011. Microplastics as contaminants
in the marine environment: a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62 (12).
Das, A.P., Mishra, S., 2008. Hexavalent chromium (VI): health hazards & environmental
pollutant. J. Environ. Res. Dev. 2, 386–392.
Das, A.P., Mishra, S., 2010. Biodegradation of the metallic carcinogen hexavalent chro-
mium Cr (VI) by an indigenously isolated bacterial strain. J. Carcinog. 9, 6.
Das, A.P., Singh, S., 2011. Occupational health assessment of chromite toxicity among
Indian miners. Indian J. Occup. Environ. Med. 15 (1), 6–17.
Das, A.P., Sukla, L.B., Pradhan, N., Nayak, S., 2011. Manganese biomining: a review.
Bioresour. Technol. 102, 7381–7387.
Das, A.P., Kumar, P.S., Swain, S., 2014. Recent advances in biosensor based endotoxin
detection. Biosens. Bioelectron. 51, 62–75.
Das, A.P., Ghosh, S., Mohanty, S., Sukla, L.B., 2015. Consequences of manganese com-
pounds: a review. Toxicol. Environ. Chem. 96, 981–997.
Duis, K., Coors, A., 2016. Microplastics in the aquatic and terrestrial environment: sources
(with a specific focus on personal care products), fate and effects. Environ. Sci. Eur.
28 (2). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-015-0069-y.
Ehrlich, P.R., Holdren, J.P., 1971. Impact of population growth. Science 171, 1212–1217.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.171.3977.1212.
Espinosa, C., Esteban, M., Cuesta, Á., 2016. Microplastics in Aquatic Environments and
Their Toxicological Implications for Fish.
Gago, J., Carretero, O., Filgueiras, A.V., Viñas, L., 2018. Synthetic microfibers in the
marine environment: a review on their occurrence in seawater and sediments. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 127, 365–376.
Gear of the Future, 2016. The great outdoors. http://www.tgomagazine.co.uk/gear-
news/gear-of-the-future.
Ghosh, S., Das, A.P., 2018. Metagenomic insights into the microbial diversity in man-
ganese-contaminated mine tailings and their role in biogeochemical cycling of
manganese. Sci. Rep. 8, 8257.
Ghosh, S., Mohanty, S., Nayak, S., Sukla, L.B., Das, A.P., 2015. Molecular identification of
indigenous manganese solubilising bacterial biodiversity from manganese mining
deposits. J. Basic Microbiol. 55, 1–9.
Ghosh, S., Mohanty, A., Sukla, A., Das, L.B., Das, A.P., 2016. A greener approach for
resource recycling: manganese bioleaching. Chemosphere 154, 628–639.
Halpern, S., 2018. Sebin project tackling microfibers head on. http://www.seabinproject.
com/Seabin-Project-Tackling-Microfibers-Head-On.
Hankett, J.M., Collin, W.R., Yang, P., Chen, Z., Duhaime, M., 2016. Low-volatility model
demonstrates humidity affects environmental toxin deposition on plastics at a mo-
lecular level. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 1304–1312.
Headley, E., 2017. Presence and prevalence of microplastics in the water and marine
organisms of the Gulf of Santa Elena, Guanacaste, Costa Rica. http://digital.lib.usf.
edu/content/SF/S0/06/42/64/00001/M39-00644-Headley_Eliot_Plastic_in_the_
ocean_EAP_Fall_2017.pdf.
Henry, B., Laitala, K., Klepp, I.G., 2018. Microplastic Pollution From Textiles: A Literature
Review. Project Report No 1 – 2018 Consumption Research Norway–SIFO.
Johnston, P., Ketkar, P., 2017. Plastic Pollution and Our Oceans: What Everyone Should
Know. Ruggles Media. http://www.northeastern.edu/rugglesmedia/2017/02/08/
plastic-pollution-and-our-oceans-what-everyone-should-know.
Karami, A., Golieskardi, A., Choo, C.K., Larat, V., Galloway, T.S., Salamatinia, B., 2017.
The presence of microplastics in commercial salts from different countries. Sci. Rep.
7, 46173.
196
Marine Pollution Bulletin 140 (2019) 188–197
Kosuth, M., Wattenberg, E.V., Mason, S.A., Tyree, C., Morrison, D., 2017. Synthetic
polymer contamination in global drinking water. https://orbmedia.org/stories/.
Kuhn, S., Rebolledo, E.L.B., Van, F.J.A., 2015. Deleterious effects of litter on marine life.
In: Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Springer International Publishing, pp. 75–116.
Kumar, M.S., Das, A.P., 2017. Emerging nanotechnology based strategies for diagnosis
and therapeutics of urinary tract infections: a review. Adv. Colloid Interf. Sci. 249,
53–65.
Kumar, M.S., Ghosh, S., Nayak, S., Das, A.P., 2016. Recent advances in biosensor based
diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infection. Biosens. Bioelectron. 80, 497–510.
Lamichhane, G., 2018. Analysis of Microfibers in Waste Water From Washing Machines.
Metropolia University of Applied Sciences. https://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/
handle/10024/141278.
Loki, R., 2016. Microfiber madness: synthetic fabrics harm wildlife, poison the food
supply and expose you to toxic chemicals. https://www.alternet.org/environment/.
Laboratory methods for the analysis of microplastics in the marine environment: re-
commendations for quantifying synthetic particles in waters and sediments. In:
Masura, J. (Ed.), NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS-OR&R-48.
Meeker, J.D., Sathyanarayana, S., Swan, S.H., 2009. Phthalates and other additives in
plastics: human exposure and associated health outcomes. Philos. Trans. R. Soc.
Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 364 (1526), 2097–2113.
Miller, R.Z., Watts, A.J., Winslow, B.O., Galloway, T.S., Barrows, A.P., 2017. Mountains to
the sea: river study of plastic and non-plastic microfiber pollution in the northeast
USA. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 124 (1), 245–251.
Mohanty, S., Ghosh, S., Bal, B., Das, A.P., 2018. A review of biotechnology processes
applied for manganese recovery from wastes. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 17,
791–811.
Naji, A., Nuri, M., Vethaak, A.D., 2018. Microplastics contamination in molluscs from the
northern part of the Persian Gulf. Environ. Pollut. 235, 113–120.
Nel, H.A., Froneman, P.W., 2015. A quantitative analysis of microplastic pollution along
the south-eastern coastline of South Africa. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 101 (1), 274–279.
Rauert, C., Lazarov, B., Harrad, S., Covaci, A., Stranger, M., 2014. A review of chamber
experiments for determining specific emission rates and investigating migration
pathways of flame retardants. Atmos. Environ. 82, 44–55.
Resnick, B., 2018. How much plastic is your washing machine sending out to sea? https://
www.vox.com/the-goods/2018/9/19/17800654.
Robertson, R., 2018. Are Microplastics in Food a Threat to Your Health? Healthline.
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/microplastics.
Rochman, C.M., Kurobe, T., Flores, I., Teh, S.J., 2014. Early warning signs of endocrine
disruption in adult fish from the ingestion of polyethylene with and without sorbed
chemical pollutants from the marine environment. Sci. Total Environ. 493, 656–661.
Rochman, C.M., Tahir, A., Williams, S.L., Baxa, D.V., Lam, R., Miller, J.T., Teh, S.J., 2015.
Anthropogenic debris in seafood: plastic debris and fibers from textiles in fish and
bivalves sold for human consumption. Sci. Rep. 5.
Rozalia Project, 2017. A human-scale solution to the biggest pollution problem facing our
ocean: microfibers. http://rozaliaproject.org/stop-microfiber-pollution/.
Shakeri, S., 2017. 83% of the world's tap water contains plastic fibres: study. https://
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/09/06/world-tap-water-plastic_a_23199390.
Sheng, L., 2016. Categories International Trade, Original Research, Textile industry
Tagsapparel, China. Fashion, International Trade (Textile Industry).
Silva-Cavalcanti, J.S., Silva, J.D.B., de França, E.J., de Araújo, M.C.B., Gusmão, F., 2017.
Microplastics ingestion by a common tropical freshwater fishing resource. Environ.
Pollut. 221, 218–226.
Smith, M., Love, D.C., Rochman, C.M., Neff, R.A., 2018. Microplastics in seafood and the
implications for human health. Curr. Environ. Health. Rep. (3), 375–386.
Sussarellu, R., Suquet, M., Thomas, Y., Lambert, C., Fabioux, C., Pernet, M.E.J.,
Corporeau, C., 2016. Oyster reproduction is affected by exposure to polystyrene
microplastics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113 (9), 2430–2435.
Synthetic Fibers Market Analysis, 2017. By Type (Acrylics, Polyester, Nylon, Polyolefin),
By Application (Clothing, Home Furnishing, Automotive, Filtration), By Region, And
Segment Forecasts, 2018 - 2025. Market Research Reprt.
Tanaka, K., Takada, H., Yamashita, R., Mizukawa, K., Fukuwaka, M.A., Watanuki, Y.,
2013. Accumulation of plastic-derived chemicals in tissues of seabirds ingesting
marine plastics. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 69 (1–2), 219–222.
Taylor, M.L., Gwinnett, C., Robinson, L.F., Woodall, L.C., 2016. Plastic microfibre in-
gestion by deep-sea organisms. Sci. Rep. 6, 33997.
Textination Newsline, 2017. Taiwan's Textiles and Clothing are expecting higher Demand
Production and Exports on a Recreation Course/Investments in Capacity and
Modernization.
The Fiber Year, 2017. 17th May 2017 World Survey on Textiles & Nonwovens. https://
www.thefiberyear.com/fileadmin/pdf/TFY2017_TOC.pdf.
Tosetto, L., Brown, C., Williamson, J.E., 2016. Microplastics on beaches: ingestion and
behavioural consequences for beachhoppers. Mar. Biol. 163 (10), 199.
Tran, Y.V., 2017. The dangers of microfiber cloths. https://designlifehacks.com/2017/
03/07/the-dangers-of-microfiber-cloths.
Tutton, M., CNN, 2018. It's not just the oceans: microplastic pollution is all around us.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/22/health/microplastics-land-and-air-pollution-
intl/index.html.
Varinsky, D., 2016. The US may be releasing over 64,000 pounds of tiny synthetic
clothing fibers into the water every day. https://www.businessinsider.in/The-US-
may-be-releasing-over-64000-pounds-of-tiny-synthetic-clothing-fibers-into-the-
water-every-day/articleshow/55190827.cms.
Wagner, J., Wang, Z.M., Ghosal, S., Rochman, C., Gassel, M., Wall, Stephen, 2017. Novel
method for the extraction and identification of microplastics in ocean trawl and fish
gut matrices. Anal. Methods 9, 1479–1490.
Wang, W., Ndungu, A.W., Li, Z., Wang, J., 2017a. Microplastics pollution in inland
freshwaters of China: a case study in urban surface waters of Wuhan, China. Sci. Total
S. Mishra et al.
Environ. 575, 1369–1374.
Wang, Z.M., Wagner, J., Ghosal, S., Bedi, G., Wall, S., 2017b. SEM/EDS and optical mi-
croscopy analyses of microplastics in ocean trawl and fish guts. Sci. Total Environ.
603–604, 616–626.
Woodall, L.C., Sanchez-Vidal, A., Canals, M., Paterson, G.L.J., Coppock, R., Sleight, V.,
Calafat, A., Roger, A.D., Narayanaswamy, B.E., Thompson, R.C., 2014. The deep sea
is a major sink for microplastic debris. R. Soc. Open Sci. 1, 140317. https://doi.org/
197
Marine Pollution Bulletin 140 (2019) 188–197
10.1098/rsos.140317.
Yanbin, Z., Chen, W., Shuang, X., Jieqiong, J., Rui, H., Guanxiang, Y., 2014. Biosensor
medaka for monitoring intersex caused by estrogenic chemicals. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 48, 2413–2420.
Yang, D., Shi, H., Li, L., Li, J., Jabeen, K., Kolandhasamy, P., 2015. Microplastic pollution
in table salts from China. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 (22), 13622–13627.