Science of the Total Environment 799 (2021) 149447

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

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

Continental microplastics: Presence, features, and environmental

transport pathways
María B. Alfonso a,b,⁎, Andrés H. Arias a,c, Ana C. Ronda a,d, María C. Piccolo a,e
a
Instituto Argentino de Oceanografía (IADO), Universidad Nacional del Sur (UNS)-CONICET, Florida 8000, Complejo CCT CONICET Bahía Blanca, Edificio E1, B8000BFW Bahía Blanca, Argentina
b
Research Institute for Applied Mechanics, Kyushu University, 6-1 Kasuga-Koen, Kasuga 816-8580, Japan
c
Departamento de Química, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Avenida Alem 1253, B8000DIC Bahía Blanca, Argentina
d
Departamento de Biología, Bioquímica y Farmacia, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Avenida Alem 1253, B8000DIC Bahía Blanca, Buenos Aires, Argentina
e
Departamento de Geografía y Turismo, Universidad Nacional del Sur, 12 de Octubre 1198 4°Piso, B8000CTX Bahía Blanca, Argentina

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Continental MPs' presence and path-

ways in air, soils, and freshwater were
addressed.
• Atmospheric fallout, runoff, groundwa-
ter migration, and hydrodynamics are
the main pathways.
• MPs size, shape, polymer composition,
and density interact with environmen-
tal variables.
• Long-term monitoring and interdisci-
plinary research are still needed.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Microplastics (MPs) are ubiquitous contaminants of great concern for the environment. MPs' presence and con-
Received 26 April 2021 centration in the air, soil, marine, and freshwater environments have been reported as a matter of priority in re-
Received in revised form 30 July 2021 cent years. This review addresses the current knowledge of the main pathways of MPs in air, soil, and freshwater
Accepted 30 July 2021
reservoirs in order to provide an integrated understanding of their behaviors in the continental environment.
Available online 2 August 2021
Therefore, MPs' occurrence (as particle counts), sources, and how their features as shape, size, polymer compo-
Editor: Yolanda Picó sition, and density could influence their transport and final sink were discussed. Wind resuspension and atmo-
spheric fallout, groundwater migration, runoff from catchments, and water flow from rivers and effluents were
pointed as the principal pathways. MPs' size, shape, polymer composition, and density interact with environmen-
Keywords: tal variables as soil structure and composition, precipitation, wind, relative humidity, water temperature, and sa-
Microplastics linity. Sampling designs for MPs research should further consider soil characteristics, climate variability and
Plastic pollution extreme events, time lag and grasshopper effects, morphological and hydrological features of aquatic systems,
Pathways and water currents, among others. Furthermore, long-term monitoring and lab experiments are still needed to
Freshwater
understand MPs' behavior in the environment. This information will provide a unified understanding of the con-
Atmosphere
tinental MPs pathways, including the key main findings, knowledge gaps, and future challenges to understand
Soil
this emerging contaminant.
© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

⁎ Corresponding author at: Instituto Argentino de Oceanografía (IADO), Universidad Nacional del Sur (UNS)-CONICET, Florida 8000, Complejo CCT CONICET Bahía Blanca, Edificio E1,
B8000BFW Bahía Blanca, Argentina.
E-mail address: mbalfonso@iado-conicet.gob.ar (M.B. Alfonso).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149447
0048-9697/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
M.B. Alfonso, A.H. Arias, A.C. Ronda et al. Science of the Total Environment 799 (2021) 149447

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Data collection and analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Continental microplastics pollution: soil, air, and freshwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Atmosphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Lakes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. Rivers, effluents, and groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.5. Estuaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Environmental microplastics' pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Atmospheric transport and fallout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Precipitation and runoff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3. Groundwater migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4. Freshwater hydrodynamics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Considerations about MPs features: shape, size, and polymer composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Conclusions, knowledge gaps, and future challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Declaration of competing interest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1. Introduction reducing its primary sources. Unfortunately, there are no estimates of

Nowadays, plastics are considered one of the most relevant pollut-
ants worldwide (GESAMP, 2015). Since 1950, the large scale of plastic
production, massive consumption, and plastic waste production has
dramatically increased (Rochman, 2018). In 2019, global plastic produc-
tion was estimated around 368 million tons and was expected to con-
tinue increasing in the future (Plastics Europe, 2019). Once the plastic
waste is wrongly discarded because of its low degradation rate, most
will remain in the environment, flowing through diverse continental
reservoirs to finally end in the marine systems (Zhu, 2021). It was esti-
mated that 1.9 Gt y−1 of municipal solid waste was generated world-
wide (Waste Atlas, 2019), from which between 9% and 11% was
plastic (0.2 Gt) depending on the country's economic income level
(Kumar and Samadder, 2017). Also, it was estimated that more than
80% of plastic production ends in the oceans (Rochman, 2018).
Jambeck et al. (2015) estimated that between 4 and 12 MT of plastic
waste gets into the ocean from coastal regions. Therefore, it is expected
that the plastic impact will not be uniform in a global context, differing
significantly between developed and developing countries.
As a versatile material, plastic is used for various products, from
polystyrene (PS), polyethylene (PE), polyethylene terephthalate (PET),
and polypropylene (PP) single-use plastics (SUP) (packaging, trays, bot-
tles), PET and polyamide (PA) synthetic clothes fibers to PE microbeads
in beauty products (Plastics Europe, 2019). Among them, SUP (36%) and
synthetic textile (14%) comprised 50% of the annual global plastic pro-
duction (Geyer et al., 2017) and were pointed out as the main contribu-
tors to plastic pollution (Brooks et al., 2018; Zhu, 2021). According to
Brooks et al. (2018), SUP comprises 6.3 billion MT of plastic waste gen-
erated worldwide. PE, PP, and PET polymers cover more than 89% of
global plastic waste exports, followed by polyvinylchloride (PVC) and
PS (Brooks et al., 2018). Plastics disposal mismanagement causes their
spread in the environments where they are brittle and fragmented (by
the effect of heat, UV rays, winds, waves), forming microplastics
(MPs) (Cole et al., 2011), defined as plastic particles less than 5 mm in
diameter (Thompson et al., 2004; Frias and Nash, 2019). According to
their origin, they can be classified as primary (industrially produced)
or secondary MPs (resulting from plastics weathering and fragmenta-
tion), being the latter the most registered type in the environment
(GESAMP, 2019). Plastic particles under 0.1 μm are considered
nanoplastics and were also reported in the environment, but the infor-
mation is still limited due to the challenges in sampling and detecting
small particles (Peng et al., 2020). Considering that MPs removal from
the environment is impossible (Bitter and Lackner, 2020), we should
be aware that the only way to solve plastic pollution is by tackling and
the MPs' direct input into the oceans (UNEP and GRID-Arendal, 2016)
or fluxes among environmental MPs reservoirs (Zhu, 2021). Therefore,
one of the critical challenges of MPs pollution is understanding their
multiple transport pathways and quantifying their flux rates to marine
environments from continental sources (Zhu, 2021).
MPs are ubiquitous in a broad type of environments from marine
(Isobe et al., 2019), freshwater (Besseling et al., 2017; Piehl et al.,
2019; G. Wong et al., 2020a), terrestrial (van den Berg et al., 2020) to
the atmosphere (Enyoh et al., 2019). Their futures as size, shape, tex-
ture, aging status, polymer composition, and density, influence their in-
teraction with the environmental variables and their final fate. Short
and long-range atmospheric MPs transport was registered in diverse
environment reservoirs as urban centers (Dris et al., 2015), remote
mountain catchments (Allen et al., 2019), including Arctic snow
(Bergmann et al., 2019), and the Tibetan glaciers (Zhang et al., 2021).
MPs presence in soils received much less research attention
(Kutralam-Muniasamy et al., 2020) but were pointed out as one of the
main long-term sinks for MPs (Rochman, 2018; Wang et al., 2020).
Moreover, rivers and effluents' water flow were considered a crucial
pathway from the continent to the oceans (Rochman, 2018). Lakes
and rivers' hydrological characteristics as water flow velocity, depth,
bottom topography, and water flow seasonal variation influence plastic
transport within freshwater reservoirs (Campanale et al., 2020). In addi-
tion, MPs could be ingested by a wide range of organisms (Vroom et al.,
2017; Arias et al., 2019; Villagran et al., 2020) and incorporated by ad-
sorption in plants (Kalčíková, 2020). So, the role of the biological com-
partment on MPs' pathways is significant and complex due to the
many processes involved as bioaccumulation and biomagnification
across food webs (Saley et al., 2019; Miller et al., 2020; Krause et al.,
2021).
As MPs pollution became a relevant topic, the number of studies in-
creased significantly in the last few years (Rochman, 2018), and conse-
quently, the number of reviews as well (Li et al., 2020a, 2020b; Du et al.,
2021; Wang et al., 2020). Despite some recent guidelines for methodol-
ogies harmonization, there are still discrepancies among studies and fu-
ture challenges. These include differences in the applied organic matter
digestion protocols (reagents, concentrations) and the units used to ex-
press the results, even in the broad nomenclature used to classify them
or to describe their behavior in the environment. As a result, there is a
high number of incomparable MPs' studies. Furthermore, the informa-
tion about the main MPs' source, sinks, and pathways from the conti-
nental reservoirs (air, soil, and freshwater systems) is still limited,
particularly about how MPs' features interact with environmental vari-
ables in their way through the environment (Zhang et al., 2020;

2
M.B. Alfonso, A.H. Arias, A.C. Ronda et al.
Zhu, 2021). Many reviews and studies comprehensively approach the
topic in the different MPs' reservoirs individually, given information
about particles counts worldwide, but still with limited or fragmented
knowledge about MPs' behavior in the environment (van Emmerik
and Schwarz, 2020; Zhou et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020a; Zhang et al.,
2020; Du et al., 2021; Dusaucy et al., 2021). Therefore, this review's ob-
jective was to discuss the current knowledge of the main environmental
MPs' pathways on air, soil, and freshwater reservoirs at once to get a
unified vision of their behavior in the continent. In addition, we also dis-
cuss MPs' occurrence (as particle counts), sources, and how their fea-
tures as shape, size, polymer composition, and density could influence
their transport and final sink. This information will provide a unified un-
derstanding of the continental MPs' pathways, including the key main
findings, knowledge gaps, and future challenges to understand this
ubiquitous contaminant.
2. Data collection and analysis
For this review, research articles and reviews were searched with
Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Google scholar as search engines.
The keywords “microplastics”, “plastic pollution”, “plastic polymers”,
“pathways”, “continental”, “freshwater”, “lake”, “river”, “estuary”,
“soil”, “terrestrial”, “air”, and “atmospheric fallout” were used for litera-
ture search. The eligibility criteria were based on the review's scope,
only considering those (1) up to date (2010–March 2021) and
(2) peer-reviewed studies, which discussed (3) microplastic pollution
in (4) freshwater (5) air, and (6) soil reservoirs. Studies with biological
assessments or without polymer identification were excluded. We con-
sider those studies comprising MPs between ~10 μm and 5 mm. All the
polymer particles counts were expressed as particles unit−1. For aquatic
environments, only those using volume-related units (e.g., particles
m−3, particles L−1) were considered. Whereas, when possible, we
Fig. 1. Analysis of the search results from Web of Science engine: a) percentage of microplastics studies in marine and continental environments, and in lakes, rivers, estuaries, soils, and the
atmosphere. b) Total number of microplastics studies per year. c) Percentage of studies in each type of continental environment per year.
3
Science of the Total Environment 799 (2021) 149447
presented the results in weight (particles kg−1) and area (particle
m−2 day−1) units for soils and atmosphere studies, respectively.
Using analysis tools from Web of Science, “microplastics” searching
results were classified by theme in marine and continental studies,
representing 62% and 38%, respectively (Fig. 1). Then, from those in con-
tinental environments (N = 2221) (Fig. 1), 72% corresponded to fresh-
water environments, 26% to soils, and only 2% to the atmosphere
(Fig. 1). From the results obtained for continental environments, for
each category, between 8% and 26% corresponded to reviews, whereas
between 67% and 89% were articles, and others (books, reports: 2%
and 16%, respectively) (Supplementary Table 1). Following these pro-
portions, up to 141 items that focused on the scope of the present
study were assessed. A semi-systematic review was applied, recom-
mended for topics where researchers within diverse disciplines partici-
pate and hinder a full systematic review process (Snyder, 2019).
According to Snyder (2019), this approach can map a research field,
synthesize the state of knowledge, and guide further research. Then,
the obtained information was resumed and discussed in three sections:
in Section 3, the occurrence and characteristics of MPs in soil, atmo-
sphere, lakes, rivers, effluents, groundwater, and estuaries are presented
to introduce the review topic. Section 4 presents and discusses the cur-
rent fragmented knowledge about the main environmental pathways in
the different MPs' reservoirs to get a more inclusive and comprehensive
understanding of the problem. Finally, in Section 5, we presented how
MPs' features as shape, size, polymer composition, and density could
also influence their final fate, concluding with the review's final remarks
and targeting the main knowledge gaps to address in the future.
3. Continental microplastics pollution: soil, air, and freshwater
Although marine MPs' research remains at the forefront (Fig. 1),
studies on air, freshwater, and soils have begun to occur in this field as
M.B. Alfonso, A.H. Arias, A.C. Ronda et al.
a matter of priority in recent years. MPs studies start increasing expo-
nentially, with freshwater environments leading (Fig. 1b, c). In the last
years, the number of studies in soils increased significantly, but the at-
mosphere continues underrepresented (Fig. 1c), so more efforts are
still needed in this area. MPs do not end in the ocean without first pass-
ing through these continental environments (Fig. 2). Therefore, this
kind of information is crucial when trying to understand the impact of
plastic pollution and its pathways from the primary sources to one of
its final sinks, the oceans (Fig. 2). Up to ten examples of the most recent
studies about MPs' abundance and characteristics in these environ-
ments are presented in Table 1, including details about the methodology
applied. Previous MPs studies also pointed out that freshwater environ-
ment was the most studied category compared to the soil and the atmo-
sphere (Kutralam-Muniasamy et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2021). This could
be explained by the similarity between freshwater and marine environ-
ments in MPs samples obtention and processing (GESAMP, 2019; UNEP,
2020), unlike atmospheric and soil samples, where methodologies had
to be developed from zero.
From the reviewed literature, it arises that a stricter consensus on
MPs' methodologies is needed. There are monitoring guidelines for
freshwater (UNEP, 2020) and marine environments (GESAMP, 2019),
including one to increase research's reproducibility and comparability
(Cowger et al., 2020). Nevertheless, a great diversity of sampling pro-
cesses, digestion protocols, results expressions, and terminologies
used to describe their behavior in the environment were observed.
Also, the details about digestion times, reagents, and temperatures
were limited in some articles (Table 1). Furthermore, according to
MPs' shape, size range, and polymer type, the expression of results
should be with the best level of detail possible. Many studies compile
extensive data but then failed to present the results, hindering valuable
information. Also, the report of MPs' results out of the methods size
limits was observed (Table 1). This kind of information could be
Fig. 2. Scheme of the continental environmental pathways between the different microplastics reservoirs in the continent.
4
Science of the Total Environment 799 (2021) 149447
mentioned but should not be considered for particle counting.
Concerning polymer identification, most studies include FTIR or
Raman spectroscopy analyses (Table 1), increasing the quality of MPs'
results.
The increasing number of MPs studies and the lack of global consen-
sus in sampling, analysis, and results expressions, leads to difficulties in
studies comparisons and bad quality research (Provencher et al., 2020).
Therefore, it is essential to clarify that the following sections are not
aimed to exhaustively revise global concentrations at the different envi-
ronmental MPs' reservoirs; conversely, it aims to select high-quality and
worldwide representative research papers for a general reference. Then,
we discuss MPs' pollution presence (as particle counts) and their pri-
mary sources in the atmosphere, soils, lakes, groundwaters, rivers, efflu-
ents, and estuaries from highlighted recent publications to address the
common MPs' distribution and transport pathways. MPs' shape, size,
and polymer composition in the different reservoirs and their role in
the continental MPs pathways are further discussed in Section 5. We de-
cided to follow Zhu (2021) proposed terminology to refer to the differ-
ent terms in MPs' pathways. These include “reservoir” (the place where
MPs accumulate), “source” (a reservoir where MPs' release > MPs' accu-
mulation), “sink” (the place where MPs' accumulation > MPs' release),
and “flux” (MPs' amount moving from one location to another per unit
of time).
3.1. Atmosphere
The number of studies about suspended atmospheric MPs (hereafter
SAMPs) has recently increased (Dris et al., 2016, 2017; Liu et al., 2019;
Bullard et al., 2021), but less than for aquatic systems or soils (Fig. 1).
Several authors agree that an increase in SAMPs analysis is critically
needed (Li et al., 2020a; Liss, 2020). The reviewed studies addressed
urban (Dris et al., 2016; Wright et al., 2020) and natural conservational
M.B. Alfonso, A.H. Arias, A.C. Ronda et al. Science of the Total Environment 799 (2021) 149447

Table 1
Summary of sample treatment details, polymer particles shape, polymer identification and type, methodology lower size limit, size range (μm), and abundance (value, range, or mean
value ± SD) from the atmosphere, soils, groundwater, lakes, rivers, effluents, and estuaries obtained from examples of the reviewed studies (N = 10 for atmosphere, soils, lakes, rivers
and effluents, estuaries and N = 4 for groundwater).

Location Sample treatment Shapes Polymer Polymer type Method Size range (μm) Abundance Reference
identification lower size (particles unit−1)
limit (μm)

Atmosphere
Paris No Fib FTIR Ray, PET, PA 50 50–5000 110 ± 96 Dris et al. (2016)
particles m−2 d−1
Grater Paris -ZnCl2 (1.6 g cm−3) Fib FTIR Ray, PE, PA, PP 1.6 50–3250 (indoor) 1586–11,130 Dris et al. (2017)
50–1650 particles m−2 d−1
(outdoor)
Western Pacific No Fib, Fra, μ-FTIR PET, PE, PES, ALK, EP, 1.6 23.07–9555 0–1.37 particles Liu et al. (2019)
Ocean Pel, Mic PA, PAN, PMA, PP, PS, m−3
PVA, PVC
Pyrenees, France -H2O2 30% (55 °C, 7 d) Fib, Fil, μ-Raman PS, PE, PP, PVC, PET 0.45 <25–2600 365 ± 69 Allen et al.
-ZnCl2 (1.6 g cm−3) Fra particles m−2 d−1 (2019)
French Atlantic -H2O2 30% (55 °C, 7 d) NA μ-Raman HDPE, LDPE, PET, PP, 10 20 ± 13 (pumped 2.9–9.6 particles Allen et al.
coast -ZnCl2 (1.6 g cm−3) PS, PVC air) m−3 (2020)
24 ± 14 (cloud
catcher)
Dongguan, China -Dried 50 °C, 48 h Fib, Fo, μ-FTIR RY, PE, PP, PS 1 <200–4200 175–313 particles Cai et al. (2017)
Fil, Fra m−2 d−1
Central London -Dried 40 °C, 4 h Fib, Fra, FTIR PAN, PET, PA, PU, PP, 20 905 ± 641 (Fib) 712 ± 162 (Fib) Wright et al.
-Ultrasonication (10% Fil, Pel, Ray, PVC, PES, PS, Acr, and 164 ± 167 and (2020)
methanol, 1 min) Fo (non-fibrous) 59 ± 32
-Nile red (non-fibrous)
particles m−2 d−1
Hamburg, Germany -NaClO 0.15:1 Fra, Fib μ-Raman PE, EVA 13 <63–5000 275 particles m−2 Klein and Fischer
-Nile red d−1 (2019)
Shanghai No Fib, Fra, μ-FTIR PET, PE, PES, PAN, PA, 1.6 23.07–9555 0–4.18 particles Liu et al. (2019)
Pel Ray, EVA, m−3
National Parks, EE. -Freeze-dried Fra, Fib FTIR PES, Ny, PE, PP, PVA, 20 4–188 (Fib) 48 ± 7 to 435 ± 9 Brahney et al.
UU. PTFE 20–3000 (Fra) particles m−2 d−1 (2020)

Soils
Croplands and -NaCl (1.20 g cm−3) Fib, Fil, FTIR PU, PE, EVA, PP, PS, 0.4 300–5000 540 ± 320 Corradini et al.
pastures, Chile -ZnCl2 (1.55 g cm−3) Fra, Pel CPE, PA particles kg−1 (2021)
(cropland)
420 ± 240
particles kg−1
(pasture)
Road dust in Japan, -H2O2 30% (25 °C, 7 d) Fib, Fra, FTIR PE, PP, PS, PET, PAK, 100 100–5000 2–39.6 particles Yukioka et al.
Vietnam, and -Dried 50 °C Fil, Pel PVS, EPC, SBR, EPDM, m−2 (2020)
Nepa -NaI (1.6 g cm−3) PU
Yangtze River, -30% KOH:NaClO (50 °C, Fra, Pel, Raman PA, PS, PVC, PE, PP, 0.45 10–˃1000 3877 ± 2356 Zhou et al.
China 48 h) Fib, Fo, PAN, PC particles kg−1 (2021)
-NaCl (1.2 g cm−3) Fil
-ZnCl2 (1.55 g cm−3)
Terra Nova Bay, No Fib, Fra, FTIR PE, PP, Ny, PVC, PS, 300 300–5000 1.15–168.3 Munari et al.
Antarctica Fil PU, PVA, EPR, SBS particles m−2 (2017)
Shanghai, China -NaCl (1.19 g cm−3) Fib, Fra, μ-FTIR PP. PE, PES 20 300–5000 78.00 ± 12.91 Liu et al. (2018)
-H2O2 30% (50 °C, 72 h) Fil, Pel (top soils)
62.50 ± 12.97
(deep soils)
particles kg−1
Franconia, -H2O2 (20 ml) Fil, Fra, FTIR PE, PP, PS 1000 1000–5000 0.34 ± 0.36 Piehl et al.
Germany Fib particles kg−1 (2018)
Shandong, China -NaCl (1.2 g cm−3) Fra, Fo, FTIR PP, PE, PS 300 100–5000 1.3–14,712.5 Zhou et al.
-NaI (1.6 g cm−3) Fib, Pel, particles kg−1 (2018)
Fil
Nanjing and Wuxi, -H2O2 30% (70 °C) Fib, Fra μ-FTIR PE, PP, PET, PAN 20 200–5000 420–1290 Li et al. (2019)
China -NaCl (1.2 g cm−3) particles kg−1
-ZnCl2 (1.5 g cm−3)
-NaI (1.8 g cm−3)
Wuhan, China -30% KOH: NaClO Fra, Pel, Raman PE, PP, PS, PA, PVC 10 10–5000 2.2 × 105 particles Zhou et al.
-NaCl (1.2 g cm−3) Fib kg−1 (2019)
-ZnCl2 (1.5 g cm−3)
Danube River, -NaCl (1.2 g cm−3) Fib, Fra, Pyrolysis PET, PP, PTFE, PMMA, 20 1 159.2 ± 138.4 Pojar et al.
Romania-Bulgaria -KOH 10 M and H2O2 30% Fra, Pel GC–MS PAN, PS, EP particles kg−1 (2021)
(7 d)

Groundwater
Public fountains, No Fib. Fra μ-Raman PTT, EP 0.22 <500–5000 1800 ± 7000 Shruti et al.
Mexico particles m−3 (2020)
Groundwater, India -H2O2 30% Fe (II) Fib, Fo, FTIR PE, PA, PS 50 110–12,500 4200 particles Selvam et al.
Pel, Fil, m−3 (2021)

(continued on next page)

5
M.B. Alfonso, A.H. Arias, A.C. Ronda et al. Science of the Total Environment 799 (2021) 149447

Table 1 (continued)

Location Sample treatment Shapes Polymer Polymer type Method Size range (μm) Abundance Reference
identification lower size (particles unit−1)
limit (μm)

Fra
Groundwater, -HCl rinse Fra, Fib μ-FTIR PES, PVC, PE, PA EP 20 50–150 0–7 particles m−3 Mintenig et al.
Germany -H2O2 30% (40 °C, 24 h) (2019)
-ZnCl2 (1.6 g cm−3)
Karst groundwater, -Dried 75 °C, 24 h Fib py-GCMS PE 0.45 <1500 860–15,200 Panno et al.
EE.UU. particles m−3 (2019)

Lakes
Lake Victoria, Africa
-H2O2 30% Fe (II) Fra, Fil, FTIR LDPE, HDPE, PP, PS, 300 300–4900 0.02–2.19 Egessa et al.
-NaCl (6 g/20 ml) Fib, Fo PES particles m−3 (2020)
Lake Guaíba, Brazil -H2O2 35% Fe (II) Fra, Fib, μ-FTIR PP, PE, PTFE, PU, PS 60 5–5000 11.9–61.2 Bertoldi et al.
-NaI (1.6 g cm−3) Mic, particles m−3 (2021)
Lake Ontario (North -CaCl2 (1.4 g cm−3) Fib, Fra, FTIR PVC, PE, PET, PP, PA 125 1000 ± 900 800 ± 700 Grbic et al.
America) Fil, Fo, particles m−3 (2020)
Pel,
Lakes, Poland -H2O2 30% (72 h) Fib Raman PET, PU, PP, PE, PS 20 <1000–5000 4930 particles Kaliszewicz et al.
m−3 (2020)
9 Patagonian lakes, -H2O2 30% (40 °C 9 h) Fib, Fo, Raman PET, PU, PS, PP. 38 <200–5000 0.3–1.9 particles Alfonso et al.
Argentina Rub, m−3 (2020)
Fra, Fil
Lake Tollense, -H2O2 30% (7 d) Fib, Fra μ-Raman PP, PE, PET 63 63–5000 19–50 particles Tamminga and
Germany -NaClO (16.7 ml/50 ml) m−3 Fischer (2020)
-Nile red
20 urban lakes, -H2O2 30% (24 h) Fib, Pel, FTIR PET, PP, PE, Ny, PS 50 <500–5000 1660–8925 Wang et al.
Wuhan, China Fil, Gra particles m−3 (2017)
Poyang Lake, China -H2O2 30% (24 h) Fib, Fil, μ-Raman PP, PE 50 <100–5000 5000–34,000 Yuan et al.
Fra, Pel particles m−3 (2019)
Lake Simcoe, No Fib, Fra, FTIR and Raman PE, PP, PS, Ray, PU, 335 125–5000 0.4–1.3 particles Felismino et al.
Canada Fil, Fo, PVC, Acr, PA, PE m−3 (2021)
Mic
Lake Kallavesi, -NaOH (pH 12) and Fib, Fra μ-FTIR PE, PP, PET, PAN, PVC, 333 >300 0.27 ± 0.18 Uurasjärvi et al.
Finland sodium dodecyl sulfate PMMA, PS particles m−3 (2020)
(1 g L−1) (50 °C, 4 h)
-HCl neutralized

Rivers and effluents

Ganges River, India No Fib, Fra FTIR Ray, Acr, PET, PVC, 330 2459 ± 209 38 ± 4 MP Napper et al.
PS, Ny particles m−3 (2021)
Garonne River, -H2O2 30% (25 °C, 24 h) Fra, Fil, FTIR PE, PS, PP 500 700–5000 0.15 ± 0.46 de Carvalho
Spain-France Fib, Pel particles m−3 et al. (2021)
Rivers, Japan -H2O2 30% Fe (II) (70 °C) Fib, Fra FTIR PE, PP, PET, PS 5 50–1000 164,790 ± Kabir et al.
-ZnCl2 (1.5 g cm−3) 171,910 particles (2021)
m−3
Langueyú stream, -H2O2 30% (50 °C, 4 h) Fib, Fra Raman PET, PA, 44 5–<1000 8.7 × 106 particles Montecinos
Argentina m−3 et al. (2021)
Ballenas Stream, -H2O2 33% (60 °C, 24 h) Fib, Fil μ-FTIR PE, Acr, PTFE 100 400–3546 (Fib) 0.00095 particles González-Pleiter
Antarctica -NaCl (36 g/100 ml) 10–1026 (Fil) m−3 et al. (2020)
WWTP, Israel -H2O2 30% Fe (II) (70 °C) Fib, Fra, μ-Raman PET, PVC, PP, PC, 20 1687–1879 (Fib) 65,000 (raw Ben-David et al.
-NaCl (6 g/20 ml) Fil, Pel, PFTE, PU, Ny, PO 308–568 (other) water) (2021)
Fo 2720 (2-step)
1970 (3-step)
particles m−3
4 Rivers, Taiwan -H2O2 35% (30 °C, 24 h) Fra, Fil, FTIR NA 300 300–5000 2.5–83.7 particles G. Wong et al.
Fo, Pel, m−3 (2020a)
Fib
Thames River, UK -KOH 40% (40 °C, 24 h) Fil, Fra, FTIR PE, PP, PEST, Ny, Acr 32 35–5000 8–36.7 particles Rowley et al.
Mic, Pel m−3 (2020)
Netravathi River, -H2O2 30% Fe (II) (75 °C) Fra, Fo, FTIR PE, PP, PET, PVC 300 300–5000 288 particles m−3 Amrutha and
India -ZnCl Fib, Pel Warrier (2020)
Haihe River, China -H2O2 30% (24 h) Fib, Fra, μ-FTIR PE, PA, PS, PP, PU, PET 333 <50–5000 0.69–74.95 Liu et al. (2020)
-NaCl (1.2 g cm−3) Fo, Fil, particles m−3
Pel

Estuaries
Dongshan Bay -H2O2 30% Fe (II) Fo, Fra, Raman PP, PE, PS PA, PE-PP, 330 300 – 5000 0.23–4.01 Pan et al. (2021)
Estuary, China -NaCl (1.19 g cm−3) Fib, Pel, PET particles m−3
Li
Pearl Estuary, China -H2O2 30% (60 °C, 24-72 Fo, Fib, FTIR PE, LDPE, PP, PS, EVA, 355 355–5000 2.376 ± 0.700 Lam et al.
h) Fil, Fra, EPDM particles m−3 (2020)
-NaCl (1.2 g cm−3) Pel
Benoa Bay Estuary, -H2O2 30% (60 °C, 24-48 Fib, Fra, μ-FTIR PP, PE, PS, Ny 300 <300–>1000 0.15–0.36 Suteja et al.
Indonesia h) Gra, Fo particles m−3 (2021)
Chesapeake Bay, EE. -H2O2 30% Fe (II) (75 °C) Fra, Fil, FTIR PE, PP, PS 330 100–8100 0.160 ± 0.287 Bikker et al.
UU. -NaCl (6 g/20 ml) Fib, Fo, particles m−3 (2020)
Pel

6
M.B. Alfonso, A.H. Arias, A.C. Ronda et al. Science of the Total Environment 799 (2021) 149447

Table 1 (continued)

Location Sample treatment Shapes Polymer Polymer type Method Size range (μm) Abundance Reference
identification lower size (particles unit−1)
limit (μm)

Minjiang, Jiaojiang -Enzymatic digestion Fib, Gra Raman PE, PP, PVC, PTFE 333 500–5000 100–4100 Zhao et al.
and Oujiang particles m−3 (2015)
estuaries, China
Changjiang Estuary, -H2O2 30% Fib, Fil, FTIR PE, PP, PET, PA, Ny, 60 60–4953 157.2 ± 75.8 Zhao et al.
China Fra PS, PVC PC, PU, ASA, particles m−3 (2019)
ABS
Mississippi and -H2O2 30% Fe (II) Fra, Fib, Laser Direct PE, PP, PU, PA, PP, PE, 25 25–5000 30,000–192,000 Scircle et al.
Alabama coasts Mic Infrared (LDIR) PTFE particles m−3 (2020)
(Gulf of Mexico)
Klang River estuary, -H2O2 30% Fe (II) Fib, Pel, FTIR PA, PE 0.45 66.91–4133 500–4500 Zaki et al.
Malaysia -NaCl 5 M Fra particles m−3 (2021)
Sado estuary, -KOH 10% (25 °C, 48 h) Fra, Fo, FTIR PE, PP, PS, PVA, Ray, 335 335–5000 0.45 ± 0.52 Rodrigues et al.
Portugal -NaCl (1.2 g cm−3) Fil, Fib, PU, PA, PES particles m−3 (2020)
Mic
Haraz River estuary, -H2O2 30% Fe (II) Fra, Fil, Differential EVA, LDPE, PA, 300 NA 1.42–5.27 Naeeji et al.
Iran -NaCl (300 g L−1) Fib, Pel scanning particles m−3 (2020)
calorimetry
(DSC)

Abbreviations: foam (Fo), fragment (Fra), fiber (Fib), pellet (Pel), film (Fil), line (Li) granule (Gra), microbead (Mic), rubber (Rub), ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), polyethylene chlorinated
(CPE), polyurethane (PU), polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE), polystyrene (PS), polyamide (PA), polyester (PES), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyacrylate (PAK), polyvinyl stea-
rate (PVS), ethylene/propylene copolymer (EPC), styrene/butadiene rubber (SBR), ethylene/propylene/diene rubber (EPDM), polyacrylonitrile (PAN), polycarbonate (PC), epoxy resin
(EP), alkyd resin (ALK), poly(vinyl acetate) (PVA), poly (trimethylene terephthalate) (PTT), poly-tetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), rayon (Ray), acrylic (Acr), Nylon (Ny), polyolefin elastomer
(PO), styrene-butadiene-styrene copolymer (SBS), Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), Styrene acrylonitrile (SAN), acrylate styrene acrylonitrile (ASA), acrylonitrile butadiene styrene
(ABS), not available (NA).

areas (Brahney et al., 2020), sea air samplings (Liu et al., 2019), and lab
experiments (Bullard et al., 2021). SAMPs registered concentrations
were varied (Table 1), ranging from up to 1.37 particles m−3 for the
western Pacific Ocean (Liu et al., 2019), more than 450 SAMPs m−2
day−1 in French Pyrenees (Allen et al., 2019) to up to 1008 particles
m−2 day−1 in London (Wright et al., 2020). A consensus about the sam-
pling methodology and the units used to express the results is still
needed (Table 1). Regardless, it could be inferred that SAMPs concentra-
tions decreased from those measured in urban centers to those mea-
sured in remote environments (Table 1).
Particles size ranged from small particles around 20 μm to larger
microfibers up to 5000 μm (Table 1). According to their shape, fibers
were the most registered, with values between 60% (Liu et al., 2019)
and 92% of the total sample (Wright et al., 2020). Nevertheless, Allen
et al. (2019) found fragments as the most prevalent shape of SAMPs
samples. These differences could be explained by the sources of the dif-
ferent particles associated with each study. For example, based on a
high spatiotemporal resolution study, Brahney et al. (2020) affirmed
that fibers dominated the SAMPs samples, suggesting laundry drying
as a significant pollution source in natural protected areas from the
United States, even more than the laundry washing process (Pirc et al.,
2016). Alarming deposition rates were estimated at over 1000 metric
tons y−1 for these protected lands (Brahney et al., 2020). Finally, the
most common polymers in SAMPs studies were PE, PS, and PP
(Table 1). Therefore, according to these results, SAMPs could be critical
MPs pollution sources, both continental and in the ocean, but more
studies are needed to determine if their fluxes are significant.
3.2. Soil
MPs presence in soils received more attention than the atmosphere
but significantly less concerning freshwater environments (Fig. 1).
More studies should be carried out, considering that soils were pointed
out as leading long-term sinks for MPs (Rochman, 2018; Wang et al.,
2020). Polymer particles' size ranged from 10 μm to 5000 μm
(Table 1), with fibers and fragments as the most prevailing shapes
(Table 1). Concerning polymer composition, PE and PP were dominant
(Table 1). The use of plasticulture in agriculture (Wang et al., 2019),
open waste dumping (Wang et al., 2020), road littering, tires abrasion
(Yukioka et al., 2020), and landfills (Bläsing and Amelung, 2018) are
cited as critical MPs' pollution sources in soils worldwide (Fig. 2). How-
ever, sewage sludge from WWTP application in agricultural lands was rec-
ognized as the main problem (van den Berg et al., 2020). Nizzetto et al.
(2016a) estimated an annual input in European and North America soils
around 63,000–430,000 and 44,000–300,000 tons y−1, respectively,
even exceeding the MPs amounts in the oceans (93,000–236,000
tons y−1) estimated by van Sebille et al. (2015). Due to MPs' hydrophobic-
ity, it was pointed out that their presence could lead to changes in soil
structure (Du et al., 2021).
MPs concentrations in soil were varied (Table 1). Studies in farm-
lands with sewage sludge application registered values from up to
10,400 particles kg−1 in Chile (Corradini et al., 2019) to up to 430,000
and 300,000 particles tons y−1 in farmlands from Europe and North
America, respectively (Nizzetto et al., 2016a). Practices as plastic
mulching to improve production conditions (e.g., temperature regula-
tion, decreasing evapotranspiration, weeds control) lead to up to
502 kg ha−1 of plastic film in soils from China (Zhang et al., 2016). An-
other study found that MPs particles increased over time in the loca-
tions where plastic mulching was continuously employed, with mean
concentrations values between 80.3 particles kg−1 (5 years) and
1075.6 particles kg−1 (24 years) in soil fields (Huang et al., 2020).
Also, a recent study in soils with different human influence (agricultural
areas, drains, dumping sites, industrial areas, lawns, parks, roadsides,
and wastelands) within Lahore district (Pakistan) registered values
from 1750 to 12,200 particles kg−1 (Rafique et al., 2020). These values
put agricultural and urban soils as significant sources and sinks of MPs
pollution worldwide and are responsible for the varied registered con-
centrations (Table 1). In many studies, agro-industrial activities and
human littering were the primary plastic pollution sources (Nizzetto
et al., 2016a; Rafique et al., 2020), suggesting that improvements in
management and legislation resources are highly required.
Another source of MPs in the soil is vehicle tire abrasion, reporting
global average emissions of 6.1 million tonnes year−1 for tire wear par-
ticles (Kole et al., 2017). A study in Japan, Vietnam, and Nepal registered
MPs in road dust of three urban cities with values of up to 39.6 particles
m−2 (Yukioka et al., 2020). For those soils near aquatic systems, high
MPs concentrations were also registered. A study in coastal soils near
the Bohai Sea and Yellow Sea (China) presented concentrations of up
to 14,712.5 particles kg−1 (Zhou et al., 2018). The authors associated
those values with aquaculture, port construction, and tourism

7
M.B. Alfonso, A.H. Arias, A.C. Ronda et al.
(Zhou et al., 2018). A recent study in riparian soils from the Yangtze
River found values between 4005 ± 2472 particles kg−1 (sub-soils)
and 3748 ± 2301 particles kg−1 (topsoils), suggesting that sub-soils re-
tain significantly more MPs particles (Zhou et al., 2021). Also, the higher
values were registered in the river's lowest reaches, with small MPs par-
ticles (<200 μm) accounting near 70% of samples (Zhou et al., 2021).
These results highlight the need for long-term research, including dif-
ferent soil fractions and sites, to arrive at better conclusions about plas-
tic pollution sources and fate in terrestrial ecosystems.
3.3. Lakes
MPs pollution studies are critical in freshwater systems because of
their role as biodiversity hotspots and drinking water sources and be-
cause they provide valuable information on the MPs flow from conti-
nental reservoirs to the oceans. From the continental MPs' research,
rivers, lakes, and estuarine systems were the most studied worldwide
(Fig. 1), suggesting wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) near urban
centers, sport and commercial fishing, water management, tourism,
and inappropriate plastic disposal as the leading pollution sources in
lakes (Sighicelli et al., 2018; Arias et al., 2019; Alfonso et al., 2020;
Meng et al., 2020; Xia et al., 2020; de Carvalho et al., 2021; Napper
et al., 2021).
During the last years, the number of articles on MPs levels in lakes
increased (Table 1); nevertheless, in regions such as South America
(Alfonso et al., 2020; Bertoldi et al., 2021), the Middle East (Picó et al.,
2020), and Africa (Egessa et al., 2020) research efforts should keep
growing to balance the baseline data available for North America,
Europe, Oceania and Asia (Table 1). In lakes, similar or higher MPs con-
centrations were registered compared to marine systems (Table 1).
Registered values varied from 0.9 particles m−3 in nine Patagonian
lakes (South America) (Alfonso et al., 2020), 800 particles m−3 in Lake
Ontario (Grbic et al., 2020) to up to 34,000 particles m−3 in Poyang
Lake (Asia) (Yuan et al., 2019). Among MPs, fragments, and fibers less
than 1 mm dominated water samples, with PE, PP, and PET as the
most common polymers (Table 1). Researchers coincide that strategies
such as improving waste management, plastic recycling, and preventing
illegal dumping in areas close to these essential water resources should
be promoted and implemented (Alfonso et al., 2020; Egessa et al., 2020).
These are particularly relevant under the COVID-19 pandemic, where
the use of SUP, gloves, and face masks has increased significantly world-
wide, and stars to being reported in the environment (Ormaza-
González and Castr-Rodas, 2020; Prata et al., 2020; De-La-Torre et al.,
2021).
3.4. Rivers, effluents, and groundwater
Rivers and estuaries worldwide were recognized as significant MPs
contributors to oceans pollution depending on their contamination
level (Lebreton et al., 2017). It was estimated that up to 2.41 million
tons y−1 of plastic waste from rivers enter the ocean, mainly between
May and October (Lebreton et al., 2017). Besides non-point pollution
sources, WWTP are a significant source of MPs in rivers. Despite their
particle removal efficiencies (97%) (Ben-David et al., 2021), high con-
centrations were reported for treated wastewater in Europe, Middle
East, EE.UU., and Australia (up to 447,000 particles m−3) (Sun et al.,
2019; Ben-David et al., 2021). Furthermore, coinciding with those poly-
mers registered for lakes and oceans (Table 1), PE, PET, PS, and PA
microfibers prevailed in WWTP samples (Sun et al., 2019; Ben-David
et al., 2021). Their dominance could be explained by the massive use
of synthetic polymers in textiles and plastics manufacturing and their
long thin shape that goes through filters (Ben-David et al., 2021). A re-
cent conservative study for global WWTP emissions estimated around
1.47 × 1015 particles y−1, whereas the discharge of untreated effluent
(which accounts for more than 50%) to aquatic environments was
3.85 × 1016 particles y−1 (Uddin et al., 2020).
8
Science of the Total Environment 799 (2021) 149447
According to Siegfried et al. (2017), pollution emissions from
European rivers differed depending on their socio-economic status
and WWTP technology. MPs concentrations in rivers were varied
(Table 1), from only 0.00095 particles m−3 for a stream in a conserva-
tional area from Antarctica (González-Pleiter et al., 2020), 0.15 particles
m−3 in the Garonne River, France (de Carvalho et al., 2021) to up to 288
particles m−3 in Netravathi River, India (Amrutha and Warrier, 2020).
From these values, it could be inferred that the affirmations of
Siegfried et al. (2017) could also be extrapolated worldwide according
to countries' economies. Looking at the General National Income per
capita (GNIPC) provided by The World Bank information in 2019 for
these examples (https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/dataset/gni-capita-
ranking-atlas-method-and-ppp-based), France has one of the highest
(USD 42,450 per capita), meanwhile for India was USD 2120. A recent
study estimated up to 3 billion particles d−1 being discharged into the
Bengal Bay in India (Napper et al., 2021). Furthermore, considering
Lebreton et al. (2017) estimations, more than 90% of plastic inputs
corresponded to the top 122 polluting rivers (4% of total surface area
and 36% of the global population), from which 103 are located in Asia
(GNIPC USD 11,734), eight in Africa (GNIPC USD 7880), eight in South
and Central America (GNIPC USD 8794) and only one in Europe
(GNIPC USD 25,205). Nevertheless, we should consider that the number
of carried studies could provide biased global estimations. Some regions
as South America and the Caribbean, Africa, and Asia (except China)
present low (or lack of) studies. So, their role in the release of MPs
could be much significant than the one estimated. The same problem
was observed for global MPs estimations in the oceans (Isobe et al.,
2019), so more studies are still needed in these regions.
Finally, in the last years, MPs' presence started to be recorded in
groundwater systems (Table 1). A study in EE.UU. karst aquifers regis-
tered concentrations up to 15,200 particles m−3 (Panno et al., 2019).
Another study analyzed MPs' presence through the drinking water sup-
ply chain, from groundwater to drinking water (Mintenig et al., 2019).
According to the authors, concentrations were low and varied from 0
to 7000 particles m−3, registering polymers like PE, PA, PS, and PVC
(Mintenig et al., 2019). A study in Mexico considered that drinking
water fountains with groundwater supply were MPs hotspots for
human consumption, registering high average concentrations (18,000
± 7000 particles m−3) (Shruti et al., 2020). Polymer identification
found poly-trimethylene terephthalate (PTT) and epoxy resins, suggest-
ing contamination from wastewater (Shruti et al., 2020). Finally, a study
in India groundwaters registered concentrations of up to 10,100 parti-
cles m−3, identifying polymers like PA, PE, and PS (Selvam et al.,
2021). The authors suggested septic systems, sinkholes, and municipal
sewage systems as potential MPs sources (Selvam et al., 2021). These
results confirm the ubiquitous presence of plastics in the environment
and highlight aquifers' vulnerability to MPs contamination.
3.5. Estuaries
Estuarine systems are the limit between freshwater and marine en-
vironments, receiving and contributing significantly to oceans MPs con-
centrations (Andrady, 2011; Figueiredo and Vianna, 2018; Arias et al.,
2019). Therefore, estuaries have been documented as plastic pollution
hotspots (Lam et al., 2020). Registered concentrations worldwide
ranged from up to 0.31 particles m−3 in the Juagaribe and the
Timonha-Ubatuba estuaries (Brazil) (Garcia et al., 2020) to up to
381,000 particles m−3 in Mississippi and Alabama coasts (Gulf of
Mexico) (Scircle et al., 2020). According to Scircle et al. (2020), MPs con-
centrations increased from the river towards the sea because of frag-
mentation into smaller particles. Also, a study in Pearl River Estuary
(China) found higher concentrations in the river's mouth (4357 parti-
cles m−3) (Lam et al., 2020). These results confirm estuaries' role as po-
tential MPs hotspots, which will eventually end in the ocean. Among the
registered polymers, PE, PP, and PS were mostly cited (Table 1). Accord-
ing to Pan et al. (2021), the widespread use of these polymers' foams in
M.B. Alfonso, A.H. Arias, A.C. Ronda et al. Science of the Total Environment 799 (2021) 149447

local fishing and aquaculture could explain their dominance. Further-
more, a study in Elbe River Estuary (Germany) registered 600,000-fold
higher MPs concentrations in sediments than in water (5.57 particles
m−3) (Scherer et al., 2020), highlighting the estuarine sediments func-
tion as MPs final sinks, where plastic particles concentrate over time.
Nevertheless, this could be affected by sediment depositions rates, and
further research should be done.
4. Environmental microplastics' pathways
In the complex framework of MPs pathways, several cross-related
physicochemical, anthropogenic, and climate variables influence MPs'
presence and distribution in the environment. Among the MPs' environ-
mental reservoirs, wind resuspension and atmospheric fallout, runoff,
freshwater hydrodynamics, tides, and ocean currents could be cited as
the most prevalent ones (Lebreton et al., 2017; Isobe et al., 2019;
Brahney et al., 2020; Xia et al., 2020). Nevertheless, there is still limited
information about the MPs flow between reservoirs to understand their
global fate (Rochman and Hoellein, 2020; Zhu, 2021). Besides remedia-
tion actions (clean-ups, reduce littering, replace plastics with biode-
gradable materials, among others), increasing our knowledge about
monitoring and fluxes/pathways process on continental sources is crit-
ical to solving environmental plastic pollution. As a simplified MPs path-
ways conceptualization, agricultural and urban settlements act as the
leading continental source where MPs fluxes across a complex gradient
to soils, the atmosphere, and aquatic environments (Fig. 2, Table 2). Lit-
tle is known about MPs' interactions with the environmental variables
such as the hydrodynamics conditions (seasonal water flow, velocity,
turbulence, flow, and water depth), catchments topography, salinity,
precipitations, runoff, and groundwater transportation, among others
(Table 2).
4.1. Atmospheric transport and fallout
Atmospheric transport is a crucial global pathway for MPs (Zhang
et al., 2020). Through atmospheric fallout, plastic items can travel
from short distances in urban centers (Dris et al., 2017) to open ocean
(Liu et al., 2019), and even to remote places as mountains (Allen et al.,
2019; Zhang et al., 2019; Parolini et al., 2021). Such transportation
could strongly impact MPs dynamics worldwide and between different
reservoirs (Zhang et al., 2020). Despite the increase in SAMPs research,
we are far from completely understood their dispersal mechanisms (Liu
et al., 2019). Only a few studies emphasize in the effect of environmen-
tal variables' on SAMPs presence; among them, rain, snow, and wind
events are cited as responsible for SAMPs transport and deposition
(Dris et al., 2015; Dris et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2019; Brahney et al.,
2020; Parolini et al., 2021).
Brahney et al. (2020) found differences between wet and dry depos-
ited SAMPs from a study in the United States protected areas. The au-
thors suggest that short distance sources prevailed for SAMPs wet
deposition events (near urban centers and soils or water resuspension).
In contrast, for dry-deposited SAMPs, due to their small size, long-range,
or even global transport was probable. Another study estimated the
global transport and deposition of secondary SAMPs as tire wear parti-
cles (TWPs) and brake wear particles (BWPs) (Evangeliou et al.,
2020). The authors found that climatic events as the North Atlantic Os-
cillation could enhance pollution transportation to remote areas, mainly
in winter and spring. Furthermore, strong winds may remobilize depos-
ited SAMPs, allowing their transport for larger distances, presenting a
kind of “grasshopper effect” as other persistent organic pollutants
(Evangeliou et al., 2020).
Concerning open ocean SAMPs deposition from the continent, differ-
ences between day and night were registered and attributed to relative

Table 2
Main environmental variables involved, key findings, and knowledge gaps for microplastics' environmental path-
ways on the continent.

Soil/ Groundwater
Atmospheric fallout Runoff Hydrodynamics
migration
9 Precipitation 9 Precipitation 9 Rainfall 9 Density/ Wind-
9 Wind 9 Soil conditions driven circulations
9 Relative humidity 9 Turbulence
Environmental 9 Systems
variables morphology
9 Flow rate

9 Grasshopper effect 9 First flush effect 9 Lag time effects 9 Long-range/ Small
9 Short-range/ Wet 9 Lag time/ Storm by surface MPs
deposition sewers irregularities 9 Short-range/ Large
9 Large range/ Dry 9 Riverbank 9 Smaller MPs MPs
Key deposition resuspension 9 Surface/ septic 9 Hotspots by
findings systems sources sedimentation,
wind, circulation,
inputs

9 More studies needed 9 Seasonality 9 More studies 9 Spatio-temporal

9 Seasonality 9 Spatio-temporal needed patterns
Particular 9 Daytime/nighttime patterns 9 Hotspots
knowledge 9 Hydrodynamics
gaps 9 Climate variability

9Interdisciplinary research including more physicochemical and climatic variables

9Quantify fluxes among MPs’ reservoirs
9Harmonization of the methodology, units, and nomenclature
General 9Increase the number of studies on non-developing countries
knowledge 9Prioritized long term over high spatial cover
gaps 9Assessment of specific pollution sources
9Effect of economic level development on MPs distribution

9
M.B. Alfonso, A.H. Arias, A.C. Ronda et al.
humidity conditions (Liu et al., 2019). Specifically, the authors found
that SAMPs pollution decreased ten times from the coastal area towards
the ocean, being up to twice as abundant during the daytime than dur-
ing the nighttime. SAMPs settlement was enhanced by the high relative
humidity conditions at night, especially on the sea (Liu et al., 2019), sug-
gesting that nighttime hours enhanced SAMPs settlement, increasing
their amount entering to oceans from the atmosphere. Moreover, in a
recent study, Allen et al. (2020) also demonstrate the inverse pathway
for SAMPs deposition from seas to the continent. The authors registered
onshore MPs transported by sea spray, estimating that near 136,000
particles ton y−1 leave the ocean by this pathway (Allen et al., 2020).
These results confirm that continental atmospheric transport (by rain,
snow, or wind) is an essential pathway to other environmental MPs'
reservoirs (soils, freshwater, ocean). Sampling conditions as wind
speed, relative humidity, time, and seasons are crucial in SAMPs moni-
toring and modeling to understand this complex process.
4.2. Precipitation and runoff
As was discussed in the previous section, precipitation events affect
MPs' presence and dispersal in the environment. Once MPs are depos-
ited from the atmosphere, they could be transported by runoff from
the continental anthropogenic sources (urban and agricultural areas)
towards freshwater aquatic systems to finally reach the ocean (Xia
et al., 2020). Allen et al. (2019) found that the frequency and intensity
of rainfall and snowfall events are more relevant than duration. Also, re-
cent studies remarked on the importance of rainfall and the first flush
effect over MPs and associated contaminants dispersion (Piñon-Colin
et al., 2020). This process explains that as the runoff surface increases
during a rainfall event, high concentrations of pollutants are recorded
at the beginning of the event to decrease gradually later (Piñon-Colin
et al., 2020). Nevertheless, MPs' emission estimates' accuracy is cur-
rently hindered by the lack of data about MPs' transport efficiency in
runoff water and streams.
A study in the Keelung River and the Xindian River (Taiwan) found
positive correlations between precipitations and MPs concentrations
(G. Wong et al., 2020a). This positive relation was also registered in riv-
ers such as Los Angeles River in the United States (Moore et al., 2011),
River Seine in France (Dris et al., 2015), and Venoge River in
Switzerland (Faure et al., 2015). According to G. Wong et al. (2020a),
this could be explained by the deposited MPs' resuspension in the
river banks. The authors also suggest that when the storm sewers net-
work is not connected to WWTP, all kinds of pollutants directly flow
into the rivers through runoff (G. Wong et al., 2020a). They also re-
ported an increased land-based number of MPs after heavy rainfall
events. Furthermore, the authors suggest 24 h lag period between the
rainfall and the MPs increased levels, corresponding to the time that
the rainwater takes to drag the particles from land into the storm sewers
and finally deposit them in the river (G. Wong et al., 2020a). Therefore,
studies about the rainfall events' influence on MPs dispersion are critical
considering rainfall spatiotemporal variations and that more frequent
and intense events are expected in the future (Westra et al., 2013).
Depending on precipitation patterns (G. Wong et al., 2020a), catch-
ment soil characteristics (Nizzetto et al., 2016b), and river hydrodynam-
ics (Besseling et al., 2017), MPs retention as well as vertical distribution
may vary significantly along with rivers (Lebreton et al., 2017). Studies
in rivers registered temporal differences in MPs concentrations associ-
ated with seasonal rainfall differences and runoff (Moore et al., 2011;
Yonkos et al., 2014). These results emphasize the role of runoff and
the seasonality of freshwater contamination by MPs. Also, global runoff
spatiotemporal patterns influence MPs distribution. A study found two
distinct plastic input peaks in rivers: between June and October from
African, North, and Central American rivers and between November to
May from European, South American, and Australia-Pacific rivers
(Lebreton et al., 2017). According to the authors, rainfall and runoff pat-
terns for Asia are not as pronounced as for other continents due to the
10
Science of the Total Environment 799 (2021) 149447
input balance between southern (East Asia and the Indian Subconti-
nent) and northern (Southeast Asia) hemisphere summers (Lebreton
et al., 2017). Therefore, local to global spatiotemporal patterns should
be considered when studying MPs runoff pathways.
4.3. Groundwater migration
Little is known and discussed about groundwater migration, which
is critical considering that drinking water comes from many groundwa-
ter sources (Mintenig et al., 2019; Panno et al., 2019). A recent study
comparing MPs presence in surface and groundwaters from India
found that the latter presented smaller MPs (Selvam et al., 2021). Ac-
cording to the authors, as MPs migrate from the surface into underlying
aquifers through soil fractures, larger MPs (0.34–4.30 mm) are retained
by surface irregularities, with only small MPs (0.12–2.50 mm) reaching
the groundwater. Furthermore, groundwaters' lower MPs levels suggest
the existence of retardation during filtration in aquifer lithologies
(Selvam et al., 2021). Polymer identifications in these plastic particles
suggest that besides surface water inputs, contamination from septic
systems are possible contamination source (Panno et al., 2019; Selvam
et al., 2021). These results agree with other studies which conceptual-
ized that once in the soils (by WWTP or greywater discharge, septic
tank outflows, or contaminated water injection for aquifer recharge),
MPs can reach aquifer systems due to leaching or infiltration in soil
pores (Re, 2019; Kim and Lee, 2020). According to Panno et al. (2019),
surface MPs could migrate to groundwater through crevices, conduits,
branch work caves, springs, and associated sinkholes. Nevertheless,
more studies about how this migration process develops and its relation
to other environmental variables as rainfall and soil characteristics are
still needed to achieve better conclusions.
4.4. Freshwater hydrodynamics
Another factor to consider when MPs are studied in lakes and rivers
is that hydrodynamics determine the speed at which MPs arrive at the
ocean. We can assume that for a singular plastic particle, the buoyancy
will be different in the case of estuaries where freshwater and saline
water effects are combined added to turbulence, which will interact
with particle size, density, and charge, in comparison with freshwater
environments as rivers (Eerkes-Medrano et al., 2015; Leslie et al.,
2017; J. K. H. Wong et al., 2020b). Therefore, greater particle flocculation
and deposition will be observed in estuaries in comparison with other
aquatic environments. Modeling advances in aquatic systems and the
MPs baseline data clarify the mechanisms influencing these particles'
presence and distribution pathways in diverse aquatic environments.
A study based on a literature review performed a hydrological model
to determine spherical MPs fate and transport (100 nm to 10 mm)
(Besseling et al., 2017). The authors assessed the advective transport ef-
fect, homo- and hetero-aggregation, sedimentation-resuspension, poly-
mer degradation, biofilm presence, and burial (Besseling et al., 2017).
They found that river hydrodynamics affect MPs size distributions
with consequences in their emission to the ocean. Characteristics such
as river width, depth, and flow rate could determine net sedimentation
and resuspension areas (Quik et al., 2015).
On the other hand, a study in the Thames River upgraded a mathe-
matical model to assess catchment hydrology, soil erosion, and sedi-
ment budget effects on rivers' MPs fate (Nizzetto et al., 2016b). The
model assumed that physical controls on soil erosion and sediment
transport are the same that control MPs' transport. According to their
results, those particles with a size <0.2 mm will not be retained in
streams, whereas larger particles with higher densities than water will
be retained in sediments, which could be remobilized under high flow
periods. Furthermore, these authors concluded that those river sections
experiencing low stream power are likely hotspots for MPs deposition
on sediments (Nizzetto et al., 2016b). Therefore, MPs storage in soils
and river sediments should be considered temporary or permanent
M.B. Alfonso, A.H. Arias, A.C. Ronda et al.
sinks of relevance, contributing to the MPs' delay or prevention to reach
the marine environment. Similar results were found in a recent study in
the Vaal River, Africa (Weideman et al., 2020). According to the authors,
during low flow periods, MPs were more abundant in the river's lower
reaches before the wet season flush.
As it occurs in the ocean's subtropical convergence zones (van
Sebille et al., 2015), internal freshwater currents could be responsible
for accumulating plastic particles. Previous studies in large lakes as the
Laurentian Great lakes or Qinghai Lake found that plastic debris distri-
bution was affected by the lake currents (Hoffman and Hittinger,
2017; Xiong et al., 2018). Moreover, source inputs and wind direction
could be responsible for MPs distribution in some small lakes (Imhof
et al., 2013; Free et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2016). Finally, for estuarine
systems, a recent study assessed the MPs distribution patterns in a
coastal upwelling environment, Ría de Vigo estuary (Spain). Using
water and sediment MPs field data during upwelling and downwelling
conditions and 2D-vertical modeling, the authors investigated the rela-
tive importance of river discharge, wind-driven, and density-driven cir-
culation (Díez-Minguito et al., 2020). According to their results, wind
force was the leading MPs' mobilization/sedimentation driver, and
more significant for water circulation than the density-driven and
river flows circulation. The authors also observed that MPs' presence
was higher in surface waters at the estuary's outer half during upwell-
ing. The flush out of MPs to the sea was affected by wind-induced circu-
lation in the water surface. Whereas, near the bottom, the effect of wind
landward and gravitational circulation produces maximum MPs con-
centration inside the estuary (Díez-Minguito et al., 2020). Therefore, ac-
cording to their modeling results, MPs circulation pathways are
dominated by winds in the outer part of estuarine environments and
by gravitational circulation in the internal area. Nevertheless, according
to Wolanski and Elliott (2015), MPs transport in lower rivers and estu-
aries could differ among studies because of their differences in river
morphology and tidal activity, tidal currents, circulation, and estuary
geometry.
5. Considerations about MPs features: shape, size, and polymer
composition
This ubiquitous contaminant's main features, as size ranges, shapes,
textures, and density, influence MPs' behavior in the environment.
About their shape, fibers are the most cited MPs type in worldwide
studies (Table 1), followed by fragments, and those related to atmo-
spheric deposition are not the exception (Dris et al., 2018; Liu et al.,
2019). A recent study found that fibers (60%) dominate the SAMPs in
the Pacific Ocean, also accompanied by fragments (31%), granules
(8%), and microbeads (5%) (Liu et al., 2019). Concerning the shape of
SAMPs composition, it was observed that samples become less diverse
as the distance from the coastline increases (Liu et al., 2019). Also, it
was reported that SAMPs numbers decreased at night, being fibers the
shape that most decreased because they are prone to the settlement
due to their density and size. Bullard et al. (2021) made a series of
wind tunnel experiments with microbeads and fibers at different con-
centrations, using sand and soil as substrates. The authors demonstrated
that MPs were preferentially transported by wind instead of the sub-
strates and that fiber shape was more favored than microbeads. These
results highlight the importance of MPs shape consideration in SAMPs
transportation models (Bullard et al., 2021). Whereas in aquatic envi-
ronments, it was empirically demonstrated that microfibers presented
the lowest velocity, followed by sheets and fragments (Reisser et al.,
2015).
When it comes to MPs size, no matter the involved MPs pathway,
most studies coincided that those smaller MPs will travel longer dis-
tances than the larger ones. This affirmation was demonstrated for at-
mospheric fallout, river flow, and even groundwater migration studies
(Mahowald et al., 2014; Nizzetto et al., 2016b; Brahney et al., 2020;
Evangeliou et al., 2020; Weideman et al., 2020; Selvam et al., 2021). A
11
Science of the Total Environment 799 (2021) 149447
recent study quantified the wet and dry MPs fallout suggesting that as
in the case of soil transport (Mahowald et al., 2014), those MPs with a
size <25 μm can be transported in a long-range or global scale distance
(Brahney et al., 2020) and the most prominent MPs as fiber can be
transported on a regional scale (10 to 1000 km) (Lawrence and Neff,
2009). Moreover, if we consider that MPs densities are lower than
those of soil particles (0.65–1.8 g cm−3 vs. ~2.65 g cm−3), it can be ex-
pected that MPs will be more transportable. Also, microfibers with
higher surface area/volume ratios will increase dragging forces and re-
duce settling velocities (Brahney et al., 2020). Therefore, according to
these results, it is expected that large MPs and wet deposition will con-
tribute less than dry deposition, highlighting the role of regional storms
in the local fallout of MPs and atmospheric patterns to a global scale dis-
persion (Brahney et al., 2020). Annual deposition maps show that
smaller road microplastic particles (diameter < 2.5 μm, PM 2.5) are dis-
persed more widely than larger ones (diameter < 10 μm, PM10). PM10
road microplastics were deposited mainly close to the hotspot emission
regions (North America, Europe, and South-eastern Asia) (Evangeliou
et al., 2020). Nevertheless, other studies proved that Saharan dust parti-
cles of up to 450 μm traveled long trans-oceanic distances (van der Does
et al., 2018). Therefore, more research is needed to understand the size
limits of SAMPs transport.
In the case of rivers, it was found that larger MPs traveled shorter
distances, being registered mainly in the river upper reaches, whereas
the smallest traveled longer distances, prevailing in the river's lower
reaches (Weideman et al., 2020). These results coincided with previous
mathematical models, showing that smaller MPs would not be retained
in streams traveling with the river flow (Nizzetto et al., 2016b). In con-
trast, it has been reported that larger particles are prone to be retained
in sediments (Nizzetto et al., 2016b). Nevertheless, in another study,
Besseling et al. (2017) observed heteroaggregates formation between
suspended solids and MPs. The authors conclude that intermediate-
sized particles of about 5 mm will be less retained (18-25%) than the
smaller submicron size range particles as well as micro and
millimeter-sized MPs (Besseling et al., 2017). Also, Enders et al.
(2015) found that MPs size affects the vertical dispersion in aquatic sys-
tems, with larger items being less affected by turbulent mixing. Finally,
in groundwater MPs migration, those larger particles were more prone
to be retained in the soil than the smallest ones (Selvam et al., 2021).
Therefore, further research is needed to understand how MPs size af-
fects their dispersion in these aquatic environments.
Finally, the most cited polymers were PE, PP, and PET in the different
continental MPs' reservoirs (Table 1). This has sense considering that
89% of the historical plastic waste exports consist of only these three
polymers (Brooks et al., 2018). MPs' polymer composition and density
greatly influence their distribution in the environment. Plastic density
ranges are wide (0.011 g cm−3 for PS foam to 2.3 g cm−3 for
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)) (Chubarenko et al., 2016). Most
manufactured MPs have buoyant properties, so they float in the surface
layer or are temporarily suspended in the water column (Li et al.,
2020a). Those MPs with higher density or which density increase by
biofouling presented higher sinking rate in the water column
(Besseling et al., 2017). There are also neutral MPs suspended in the
water column, showing that researchers should consider analyzing
their presence in the water column and not only on the surface to
avoid underestimation. In the case of atmospheric fallout, Liu et al.
(2019) found a high percentage of PET in SAMPs samples and that the
PET and PE–PP proportion decreased at night compared with the day-
time. These results could be explained by their density and hygroscop-
icity properties and higher relative humidity conditions during the
night (Liu et al., 2019). In accordance with these results, Allen et al.
(2019) also found differences in SAMPs composition depending on cli-
mate variability. The authors registered higher PS (1.05 g cm−3) con-
centrations when rain or snow events were low and higher amounts
of PE (0.96 g cm−3) when these events increased, according to the dif-
ferences in polymers densities (Allen et al., 2019).
M.B. Alfonso, A.H. Arias, A.C. Ronda et al.
Also, plastic items have presented different resistance and mecha-
nism formation of MPs according to their polymer's composition
(Efimova et al., 2018). In this manner, a study evaluated the degradation
effect of beach sea wash with coarse bottoms on plastics and found that
the MPs number that finally ends in the oceans was expected to increase
(Efimova et al., 2018). With an experimental study using common poly-
mers registered in ecosystems as LDPE (bags), PP (single-use table-
ware), and PS (PS foam trays and solid PS tableware), the authors
found that solid PS generated more MPs items and mass (Efimova
et al., 2018). In contrast, PP (0.86 g cm−3) was the most resistant
(Efimova et al., 2018). Therefore, the contribution to MPs pollution
from PS SUP as trays, cups, and food containers is expected to be higher
in the future.
6. Conclusions, knowledge gaps, and future challenges
MPs are among the contaminants of emerging concern being ubiqui-
tous in different environments, from marine, freshwater, terrestrial to
the atmosphere. We can conclude that freshwater systems were the
most studied continental MPs reservoirs, with rivers and estuaries dis-
charges as the main MPs' pollution contributors to marine systems. Fi-
bers prevailed in MPs samples from all the environments, with PE, PP,
PET, and PS as the dominant polymers and decreasing sizes with in-
creasing distance from their sources. The atmospheric deposition also
contributes to oceans pollution; nevertheless, more baseline studies
are still needed in this matter. Also, more research should focus on
MPs presence and pathways on soil systems, as one of their main
long-term sinks, including groundwaters, which demonstrated vulnera-
bility to MPs contamination.
From this review arises that it is crucial to keep pushing forward to get
a consensus on MPs methodologies, including sampling process, digestion
protocols, result expressions, and the nomenclature used to describe
them or their behavior in the environment. Also, the methodology
applied and the results' expression should be more detailed. Many studies
compile extensive data but then failed on how the results were presented,
hindering valuable information (e.g., averaged size ranges and particle
counts). Following the recommended monitoring guidelines and keep
improving existing protocols as MPs' knowledge increases is highly
needed. For that, journals, peer reviewers, and researchers had to join
efforts to resolve the lack of consensus after more than ten years of studies
on the topic.
The scientific community still needs to address fundamental chal-
lenges and questions about MPs' study and behavior. This review high-
lights how several mechanisms and environmental variables interact in
the MPs pathways, from continental systems to marine environments,
resulting in a complex interconnected framework. Wind resuspension
and atmospheric fallout, soils and groundwater migration, runoff, and
freshwater hydrodynamics were among the main continental path-
ways. Climate processes as the spatiotemporal rainfall variation, ex-
treme events, and atmospheric circulation patterns are relevant for
MPs pathways. Also, soil structure and characteristics interfere in MPs'
migration to deeper soils layers and groundwater systems. Whereas
for freshwater pathways, hydrological characteristics as water flow ve-
locity and seasonal variation, water depth, turbulence, and salinity af-
fect MPs' transport towards the ocean. Simultaneously, all the
enumerated processes interact with MPs' size, shape, polymer composi-
tion, and density, affecting their buoyancy in aquatic systems or their
short-long range transport through the air, river flow, and soils. The
combination of all these factors influences their pathways, accumula-
tion in hotspots, and their final sink. Therefore, when trying to explain
their presence and behavior, interdisciplinary studies approaches are
highly recommended.
Most studies only focused on registered MPs presence as particles
counts. A future challenge based on this information will be being avail-
able to quantify MPs fluxes from the different continental reservoirs.
Therefore, it is highly needed to start including more physicochemical
12
Science of the Total Environment 799 (2021) 149447
and meteorological variables and prioritize long-term monitoring. Con-
tinental environments are affected by point and non-point plastic in-
puts, so it is crucial to improve pollution sources assessments and
avoid enumerating general categories (plastic disposal, fishing activi-
ties, laundry, among others). It is worth mentioning that most plastic
pollution research efforts were made in China, North America, and
Europe whereas, studies in misrepresented areas as South America
and the Caribbean, Middle East, and Africa are still needed. In this mat-
ter, the relationship between countries' economies, WWTP available
technologies, and pollution regulations need special attention in the fu-
ture to abate this global problem. Also, laboratory experiments about
particles characteristics and behavior in the environment are needed.
This will contribute to improve sampling protocols and not underesti-
mate their presence in the environment.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149447.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
References
Alfonso, M.B., Scordo, F., Seitz, C., Mavo Manstretta, G.M., Ronda, A.C., Arias, A.H., Tomba,
J.P., Silva, L.I., Perillo, G.M.E., Piccolo, M.C., 2020. First evidence of microplastics in nine
lakes across Patagonia (South America). Sci. Total Environ. 733. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139385.
Allen, S., Allen, D., Phoenix, V.R., Le Roux, G., Durántez Jiménez, P., Simonneau, A., Binet, S.,
Galop, D., 2019. Atmospheric transport and deposition of microplastics in a remote
mountain catchment. Nat. Geosci. 12, 339–344. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-
019-0335-5.
Allen, S., Allen, D., Moss, K., Le Roux, G., Phoenix, V.R., Sonke, J.E., 2020. Examination of the
ocean as a source for atmospheric microplastics. PLoS One 15, 1–14. https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0232746.
Amrutha, K., Warrier, A.K., 2020. The first report on the source-to-sink characterization of
microplastic pollution from a riverine environment in tropical India. Sci. Total Envi-
ron. 739, 140377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140377.
Andrady, A.L., 2011. Microplastics in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62,
1596–1605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.05.030.
Arias, A.H., Ronda, A.C., Oliva, A.L., Marcovecchio, J.E., 2019. Evidence of microplastic in-
gestion by fish from the Bahía Blanca Estuary in Argentina, South America. Bull. Envi-
ron. Contam. Toxicol. 102, 750–756. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-019-02604-2.
Ben-David, E.A., Habibi, M., Haddad, E., Hasanin, M., Angel, D.L., Booth, A.M., Sabbah, I.,
2021. Microplastic distributions in a domestic wastewater treatment plant: removal
efficiency, seasonal variation and influence of sampling technique. Sci. Total Environ.
752, 141880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141880.
Bergmann, M., Mützel, S., Primpke, S., Tekman, M.B., Trachsel, J., Gerdts, G., 2019. White
and wonderful? Microplastics prevail in snow from the Alps to the Arctic. Sci. Adv.
5, eaax1157. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aax1157.
Bertoldi, C., Lara, L.Z., Mizushima, F.A., d. L. F.C.G., Martins, 2021. First evidence of
microplastic contamination in the freshwater of Lake Guaíba, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Sci. Total Environ. 759, 143503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143503.
Besseling, E., Quik, J.T.K., Sun, M., Koelmans, A.A., 2017. Fate of nano- and microplastic in
freshwater systems: a modeling. Environ. Pollut. 220, 540–548. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.envpol.2016.10.001.
Bitter, H., Lackner, S., 2020. First quantification of semi-crystalline microplastics in indus-
trial wastewaters. Chemosphere 258, 127388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2020.127388.
Bikker, J., Lawson, J., Wilson, S., Rochman, C.M., 2020. Microplastics and other anthropo-
genic particles in the surface waters of the Chesapeake Bay. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 156,
111257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111257.
Bläsing, M., Amelung, W., 2018. Plastics in soil: analytical methods and possible sources.
Sci. Total Environ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.086.
Brahney, J., Hallerud, M., Heim, E., Hahnenberger, M., Sukumaran, S., 2020. Plastic rain in
protected areas of the United States. Science 368, 1257–1260. https://doi.org/10.
1126/science.aaz5819.
Brooks, A.L., Wang, S., Jambeck, J.R., 2018. The Chinese import ban and its impact on global
plastic waste trade. Sci. Adv. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aat0131.
Bullard, J.E., Ockelford, A., O'Brien, P., McKenna Neuman, C., 2021. Preferential transport of
microplastics by wind. Atmos. Environ. 245, 118038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
atmosenv.2020.118038.
Cai, L., Wang, J., Peng, J., Tan, Z., Zhan, Z., Tan, X., Chen, Q., 2017. Characteristic of
microplastics in the atmospheric fallout from Dongguan city, China: preliminary re-
search and first evidence. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 24, 24928–24935. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11356-017-0116-x.
Campanale, C., Stock, F., Massarelli, C., Kochleus, C., Bagnuolo, G., Reifferscheid, G.,
Uricchio, V.F., 2020. Microplastics and their possible sources: the example of ofanto
M.B. Alfonso, A.H. Arias, A.C. Ronda et al.
river in Southeast Italy. Environ. Pollut. 258, 113284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2019.113284.
Chubarenko, I., Bagaev, A., Zobkov, M., Esiukova, E., 2016. On some physical and dynam-
ical properties of microplastic particles in marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 108,
105–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.04.048.
Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Halsband, C., Galloway, T.S., 2011. Microplastics as contaminants in
the marine environment: a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2011.09.025.
Corradini, F., Meza, P., Eguiluz, R., Casado, F., Huerta-Lwanga, E., Geissen, V., 2019. Evi-
dence of microplastic accumulation in agricultural soils from sewage sludge disposal.
Sci. Total Environ. 671, 411–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.368.
Corradini, F., Casado, F., Leiva, V., Huerta-Lwanga, E., Geissen, V., 2021. Microplastics oc-
currence and frequency in soils under different land uses on a regional scale. Sci.
Total Environ. 752, 141917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141917.
Cowger, W., Booth, A.M., Hamilton, B.M., Thaysen, C., Primpke, S., Munno, K., Lusher, A.L.,
Dehaut, A., Vaz, V.P., Liboiron, M., Devriese, L.I., Hermabessiere, L., Rochman, C., Athey,
S.N., Lynch, J.M., De Frond, H., Gray, A., Jones, O.A.H., Brander, S., Steele, C., Moore, S.,
Sanchez, A., Nel, H., 2020. Reporting guidelines to increase the reproducibility and
comparability of research on microplastics. Appl. Spectrosc. 74, 1066–1077. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0003702820930292.
de Carvalho, A.R., Garcia, F., Riem-Galliano, L., Tudesque, L., Albignac, M., ter Halle, A.,
Cucherousset, J., 2021. Urbanization and hydrological conditions drive the spatial
and temporal variability of microplastic pollution in the Garonne River. Sci. Total En-
viron. 769, 144479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144479.
De-La-Torre, G.E., Rakib, M.R.J., Pizarro-Ortega, C.I., Dioses-Salinas, D.C., 2021. Occurrence
of personal protective equipment (PPE) associated with the COVID-19 pandemic
along the coast of Lima, Peru. Sci. Total Environ. 774, 145774. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145774.
Díez-Minguito, M., Bermúdez, M., Gago, J., Carretero, O., Viñas, L., 2020. Observations and
idealized modelling of microplastic transport in estuaries: the exemplary case of an
upwelling system (Ría de Vigo, NW Spain). Mar. Chem. 222, 103780. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.marchem.2020.103780.
Dris, R., Gasperi, J., Saad, M., Mirande, C., Tassin, B., 2016. Synthetic fibers in atmospheric
fallout: a source of microplastics in the environment? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 104, 290–293.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.01.006.
Dris, R., Gasperi, J., Mirande, C., Mandin, C., Guerrouache, M., Langlois, V., Tassin, B., 2017.
A first overview of textile fibers, including microplastics, in indoor and outdoor envi-
ronments. Environ. Pollut. 221, 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.12.
013.
Dris, R., Gasperi, J., Rocher, V., Saad, M., Renault, N., Tassin, B., 2015. Microplastic contam-
ination in an urban area: a case study in greater Paris. Environ. Chem. 12, 592–599.
https://doi.org/10.1071/EN14167.
Dris, R., Gasperi, J., Rocher, V., Tassin, B., 2018. Synthetic and non-synthetic anthropogenic
fibers in a river under the impact of Paris megacity: sampling methodological aspects
and flux estimations. Sci. Total Environ. 618, 157–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2017.11.009.
Du, J., Zhou, Q., Li, H., Xu, S., Wang, C., Fu, L., Tang, J., 2021. Environmental distribution,
transport and ecotoxicity of microplastics: a review. J. Appl. Toxicol. 41 (1), 52–64.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jat.4034.
Dusaucy, J., Gateuille, D., Perrette, Y., Naffrechoux, E., 2021. Microplastic pollution of
worldwide lakes. Environ. Pollut. 284, 117075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.
2021.117075.
Eerkes-Medrano, D., Thompson, R.C., Aldridge, D.C., 2015. Microplastics in freshwater sys-
tems: a review of the emerging threats, identification of knowledge gaps and
prioritisation of research needs. Water Res. 75, 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2015.02.012.
Efimova, I., Bagaeva, M., Bagaev, A., Kileso, A., Chubarenko, I.P., 2018. Secondary
microplastics generation in the sea swash zone with coarse bottom sediments: labo-
ratory experiments. Front. Mar. Sci. 5, 313. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.
00313.
Egessa, R., Nankabirwa, A., Ocaya, H., Pabire, W.G., 2020. Microplastic pollution in surface
water of Lake Victoria. Sci. Total Environ. 741, 140201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2020.140201.
Enders, K., Lenz, R., Stedmon, C.A., Nielsen, T.G., 2015. Abundance, size and polymer com-
position of marine microplastics =10 µm in the Atlantic Ocean and their modelled
vertical distribution. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 100 (1), 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2015.09.027.
Enyoh, C.E., Verla, A.W., Verla, E.N., Ibe, F.C., Amaobi, C.E., 2019. Airborne microplastics: a
review study on method for analysis, occurrence, movement and risks. Environ.
Monit. Assess. 191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-019-7842-0.
Evangeliou, N., Grythe, H., Klimont, Z., Heyes, C., Eckhardt, S., Lopez-Aparicio, S., Stohl, A.,
2020. Atmospheric transport is a major pathway of microplastics to remote regions.
Nat. Commun. 11 (1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17201-9.
Faure, F., Demars, C., Wieser, O., Kunz, M., De Alencastro, L.F., 2015. Plastic pollution in
swiss surface waters: nature and concentrations, interaction with pollutants. Environ.
Chem. 12, 582–591. https://doi.org/10.1071/EN14218.
Felismino, M.E.L., Helm, P.A., Rochman, C.M., 2021. Microplastic and other anthropogenic
microparticles in water and sediments of Lake Simcoe. J. Great Lakes Res. 47,
180–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2020.10.007.
Figueiredo, G.M., Vianna, T.M.P., 2018. Suspended microplastics in a highly polluted bay:
abundance, size, and availability for mesozooplankton. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 135,
256–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.07.020.
Free, C.M., Jensen, O.P., Mason, S.A., Eriksen, M., Williamson, N.J., Boldgiv, B., 2014. High-
levels of microplastic pollution in a large, remote, mountain lake. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
85, 156–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.06.001.
13
Science of the Total Environment 799 (2021) 149447
Frias, J.P.G.L., Nash, R., 2019. Microplastics: finding a consensus on the definition. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 138, 145–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.11.022.
Garcia, T.M., Campos, C.C., Mota, E.M.T., Santos, N.M.O., de Campelo, R.P., S. L.C.G., Prado,
2020. Microplastics in subsurface waters of the western equatorial Atlantic (Brazil).
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 150, 110705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110705.
GESAMP, 2015. Sources, fate and effects of microplastics in the marine environment: a
global assessment. Reports and Studies GESAMP https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.
3803.7925.
GESAMP, 2019. Guidelines or the monitoring and assessment of plastic litter and
microplastics in the ocean. In: Kershaw, P.J., Turra, A., Galgani, F. (Eds.), IMO/FAO/
UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNDP/ISA Joint Group of Experts on the
Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection Rep. Stud. GESAMP No. 99,
130p.
Geyer, R., Jambeck, J.R., Law, K.L., 2017. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made.
Sci. Adv. 3, 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782.
González-Pleiter, M., Edo, C., Velázquez, D., Casero-Chamorro, M.C., Leganés, F., Quesada,
A., Fernández-Piñas, F., Rosal, R., 2020. First detection of microplastics in the freshwa-
ter of an Antarctic Specially Protected Area. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 161, 1–6. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111811.
Grbic, J., Helm, P., Athey, S., Rochman, C.M., 2020. Microplastics entering northwestern
Lake Ontario are diverse and linked to urban sources. Water Res. 174, 115623.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.115623.
Hoffman, M.J., Hittinger, E., 2017. Inventory and transport of plastic debris in the Lauren-
tian Great Lakes. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 115, 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.
2016.11.061.
Huang, Y., Liu, Q., Jia, W., Yan, C., Wang, J., 2020. Agricultural plastic mulching as a source
of microplastics in the terrestrial environment. Environ. Pollut. 260, 114096. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114096.
Imhof, H.K., Ivleva, N.P., Schmid, J., Niessner, R., Laforsch, C., 2013. Contamination of beach
sediments of a subalpine lake with microplastic particles. Curr. Biol. 23, R867–R868.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.09.001.
Isobe, A., Iwasaki, S., Uchida, K., Tokai, T., 2019. Abundance of non-conservative
microplastics in the upper ocean from 1957 to 2066. Nat. Commun. 10, 1–3.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-08316-9.
Jambeck, J.R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T.R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., Narayan, R.,
Law, K.L., 2015. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 347,
768–771. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260352.
Kabir, A.H.M.E., Sekine, M., Imai, T., Yamamoto, K., Kanno, A., Higuchi, T., 2021. Assessing
small-scale freshwater microplastics pollution, land-use, source-to-sink conduits, and
pollution risks: perspectives from japanese rivers polluted with microplastics. Sci.
Total Environ. 768, 144655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144655.
Kalčíková, G., 2020. Aquatic vascular plants – A forgotten piece of nature in microplastic
research. Environ. Pollut. 262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114354.
Kaliszewicz, A., Winczek, M., Karaban, K., Kurzydlowski, D., Górska, M., Koselak, W.,
Romanowski, J., 2020. The contamination of inland waters by microplastic fibres
under different anthropogenic pressure: preliminary study in Central Europe
(Poland). Waste Manag. Res. 38, 1231–1238. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0734242X20938448.
Kim, H., Lee, J.Y., 2020. Emerging concerns about microplastic pollution on groundwater
in South Korea. Sustainability (Switzerland) 12 (13). https://doi.org/10.3390/
su12135275.
Klein, M., Fischer, E.K., 2019. Microplastic abundance in atmospheric deposition within
the metropolitan area of Hamburg, Germany. Sci. Total Environ. 685, 96–103.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.405.
Kole, J.P., Löhr, A.J., Van Belleghem, F.G.A.J., Ragas, A.M.J., 2017. Wear and tear of tyres: a
stealthy source of microplastics in the environment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health
14. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14101265.
Krause, S., Baranov, V., Nel, H.A., Drummond, J.D., Kukkola, A., Hoellein, T., Sambrook
Smith, G.H., Lewandowski, J., Bonnet, B., Packman, A.I., Sadler, J., Inshyna, V., Allen,
S., Allen, D., Simon, L., Mermillod-Blondin, F., Lynch, I., 2021. Gathering at the top? En-
vironmental controls of microplastic uptake and biomagnification in freshwater food
webs. Environ. Pollut. 268, 115750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115750.
Kumar, A., Samadder, S.R., 2017. A review on technological options of waste to energy for
effective management of municipal solid waste. Waste Manag. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.wasman.2017.08.046110618.
Kutralam-Muniasamy, G., Pérez-Guevara, F., Elizalde-Martínez, I., Shruti, V.C., 2020. Re-
view of current trends, advances and analytical challenges for microplastics contam-
ination in Latin America. Environ. Pollut. 267, 115463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2020.115463.
Lam, T.W.L., Fok, L., Lin, L., Xie, Q., Li, H.X., Xu, X.R., Yeung, L.C., 2020. Spatial variation of
floatable plastic debris and microplastics in the Pearl River Estuary, South China.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 158, 111383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111383.
Lawrence, C.R., Neff, J.C., 2009. The contemporary physical and chemical flux of aeolian
dust: a synthesis of direct measurements of dust deposition. Chem. Geol. 267,
46–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2009.02.005.
Lebreton, L.C.M., Zwet, J.Van, Der, Damsteeg, J. B., Slat, 2017. River plastic emissions to the
world&apos;s oceans. Nat. Commun. 8, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15611.
Leslie, H.A., Brandsma, S.H., van Velzen, M.J.M., Vethaak, A.D., 2017. Microplastics en
route: field measurements in the Dutch river delta and Amsterdam canals, wastewa-
ter treatment plants, North Sea sediments and biota. Environ. Int. 101, 133–142.
Li, Q., Wu, J., Zhao, X., Gu, X., Ji, R., 2019. Separation and identification of microplastics
from soil and sewage sludge. Environ. Pollut. 254, 113076. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.envpol.2019.113076.
Li, P., Wang, X., Su, M., Zou, X., Duan, L., Zhang, H., 2020a. Characteristics of plastic pollu-
tion in the environment: a review. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s00128-020-02820-1.
M.B. Alfonso, A.H. Arias, A.C. Ronda et al.
Li, J., Song, Y., Cai, Y., 2020b. Focus topics on microplastics in soil: analytical methods, oc-
currence, transport, and ecological risks. Environ. Pollut. 257, 113570. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113570.
Liss, P.S., 2020. Microplastics: all up in the air? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 153. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.marpolbul.2020.110952.
Liu, M., Lu, S., Song, Y., Lei, L., Hu, J., Lv, W., Zhou, W., Cao, C., Shi, H., Yang, X., He, D., 2018.
Microplastic and mesoplastic pollution in farmland soils in suburbs of Shanghai,
&nbsp;China. Environ. Pollut. 242, 855–862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.
07.051.
Liu, K., Wu, T., Wang, X., Song, Z., Zong, C., Wei, N., Li, D., 2019. Consistent transport of ter-
restrial microplastics to the ocean through atmosphere. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53,
10612–10619. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b03427.
Liu, K., Wang, X., Song, Z., Wei, N., Ye, H., Cong, X., Zhao, L., Li, Y., Qu, L., Zhu, L., Zhang, F.,
Zong, C., Jiang, C., Li, D., 2020. Global inventory of atmospheric fibrous microplastics
input into the ocean: an implication from the indoor origin. J. Hazard. Mater. 400,
123223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123223.
Mahowald, N., Albani, S., Kok, J.F., Engelstaeder, S., Scanza, R., Ward, D.S., Flanner, M.G.,
2014. The size distribution of desert dust aerosols and its impact on the earth system.
Aeolian Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aeolia.2013.09.002.
Meng, Y., Kelly, F.J., Wright, S.L., 2020. Advances and challenges of microplastic pollution
in freshwater ecosystems: a UK perspective. Environ. Pollut. 256, 113445. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113445.
Miller, M.E., Hamann, M., Kroon, F.J., 2020. Bioaccumulation and biomagnification of
microplastics in marine organisms: a review and meta-analysis of current data.
PLoS One 15, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240792.
Mintenig, S.M., Löder, M.G.J., Primpke, S., Gerdts, G., 2019. Low numbers of microplastics
detected in drinking water from ground water sources. Sci. Total Environ. 648,
631–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.178.
Montecinos, S., Tognana, S., Pereyra, M., Silva, L., Tomba, J.P., 2021. Study of a stream in
Argentina with a high concentration of microplastics: preliminary analysis of the
methodology. Sci. Total Environ. 760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.
143390.
Moore, C.J., Lattin, G.L., Zellers, A.F., 2011. Quantity and type of plastic debris flowing from
two urban rivers to coastal waters and beaches of Southern California. Rev. Gestão
Costeira Integr. 11, 65–73. https://doi.org/10.5894/rgci194.
Munari, C., Infantini, V., Scoponi, M., Rastelli, E., Corinaldesi, C., Mistri, M., 2017.
Microplastics in the sediments of Terra Nova Bay (Ross Sea, Antarctica). Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 122, 161–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.06.039.
Naeeji, N., Rafeei, M., Azizi, H., Hashemi, M., Eslami, A., 2020. Data on the microplastics
contamination in water and sediments along the Haraz River estuary,&nbsp;Iran.
Data Brief 32, 106155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2020.106155.
Napper, I.E., Baroth, A., Barrett, A.C., Bhola, S., Chowdhury, G.W., Davies, B.F.R., Duncan,
E.M., Kumar, S., Nelms, S.E., Hasan Niloy, M.N., Nishat, B., Maddalene, T., Thompson,
R.C., Koldewey, H., 2021. The abundance and characteristics of microplastics in sur-
face water in the transboundary Ganges River. Environ. Pollut. xxxx, 116348.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.116348.
Nizzetto, L., Futter, M., Langaas, S., 2016a. Are agricultural soils dumps for microplastics of
urban origin? Environ. Sci. Technol. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04140.
Nizzetto, L., Bussi, G., Futter, M.N., Butterfield, D., Whitehead, P.G., 2016b. A theoretical as-
sessment of microplastic transport in river catchments and their retention by soils
and river sediments. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 18, 1050–1059. https://doi.org/
10.1039/c6em00206d.
Ormaza-González, F., Castr-Rodas, D., 2020. COVID-19 Impacts on Beaches and Coastal
Water Pollution: Management Proposals Post-pandemic, pp. 1–11 https://doi.org/
10.13140/RG.2.2.29115.23841.
Pan, Z., Liu, Q., Jiang, R., Li, W., Sun, X., Lin, H., Jiang, S., Huang, H., 2021. Microplastic pol-
lution and ecological risk assessment in an estuarine environment: the Dongshan Bay
of China. Chemosphere 262, 127876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.
127876.
Panno, S.V., Kelly, W.R., Scott, J., Zheng, W., McNeish, R.E., Holm, N., Hoellein, T.J., Baranski,
E.L., 2019. Microplastic contamination in karst groundwater systems. Groundwater
57 (2), 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.12862.
Parolini, M., Antonioli, D., Borgogno, F., Gibellino, M.C., Fresta, J., Albonico, C., De Felice, B.,
Canuto, S., Concedi, D., Romani, A., Rosio, E., Gianotti, V., Laus, M., Ambrosini, R.,
Cavallo, R., 2021. Microplastic contamination in snow from western Italian alps. Int.
J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18 (2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020768.
Peng, L., Fu, D., Qi, H., Lan, C.Q., Yu, H., Ge, C., 2020. Micro- and nano-plastics in marine en-
vironment: source, distribution and threats — a review. Sci. Total Environ. 698.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134254.
Picó, Y., Alvarez-Ruiz, R., Alfarhan, A.H., El-Sheikh, M.A., Alshahrani, H.O., Barceló, D., 2020.
Pharmaceuticals, pesticides, personal care products and microplastics contamination
assessment of Al-Hassa irrigation network (Saudi Arabia) and its shallow lakes. Sci.
Total Environ. 701, 135021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135021.
Piehl, S., Leibner, A., Löder, M.G.J., Dris, R., Bogner, C., Laforsch, C., 2018. Identification and
quantification of macro- and microplastics on an agricultural farmland. Sci. Rep. 8,
1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-36172-y.
Piehl, S., Mitterwallner, V., Atwood, E.C., Bochow, M., Laforsch, C., 2019. Abundance and
distribution of large microplastics (1–5 mm) within beach sediments at the Po
River Delta, northeast Italy. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 149, 110515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2019. 110515.
Piñon-Colin, T., Rodriguez-Jimenez, R., Rogel-Hernandez, E., Alvarez-Andrade, A., Wakida,
F.T., 2020. Microplastics in stormwater runoff in a semiarid region, Tijuana, Mexico.
Sci. Total Environ. 704, 135411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135411.
Pirc, U., Vidmar, M., Mozer, A., Kržan, A., 2016. Emissions of microplastic fibers from mi-
crofiber fleece during domestic washing. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 23, 22206–22211.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-7703-0.
14
Science of the Total Environment 799 (2021) 149447
Plastics Europe, 2019. The Facts 2019. An analysis of European plastics production, de-
mand and waste data [WWW Document]. Plast. – Facts (accessed 9.8.20). https://
www.plasticseurope.org/application/files/3715/1689/8308/2015plastics_the_facts_
14122015.pdf.
Pojar, I., Stanica, A., Stock, F., Kochleus, C., Schultz, M., Bradley, C., 2021. Sedimentary
microplastic concentrations from the romanian Danube River to the Black Sea. Sci.
Rep. 11, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81724-4.
Prata, J.C., Silva, A.L.P., Walker, T.R., Duarte, A.C., Rocha-Santos, T., 2020. COVID-19 pan-
demic repercussions on the use and management of plastics. Environ. Sci. Technol.
54, 7760–7765. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c02178.
Provencher, J.F., Covernton, G.A., Moore, R.C., Horn, D.A., Conkle, J.L., Lusher, A.L., 2020.
Proceed with caution: the need to raise the publication bar for microplastics research.
Sci. Total Environ. 748, 141426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141426.
Quik, J.T.K., de Klein, J.J.M., Koelmans, A.A., 2015. Spatially explicit fate modelling of
nanomaterials in natural waters. Water Res. 80, 200–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2015.05.025.
Rafique, A., Irfan, M., Mumtaz, M., Qadir, A., 2020. Spatial distribution of microplastics in
soil with context to human activities: a case study from the urban center. Environ.
Monit. Assess. 192 (11). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-020-08641-3.
Re, V., 2019. Shedding light on the invisible: addressing the potential for groundwater
contamination by plastic microfibers. Hydrogeol. J. 27 (7), 2719–2727. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10040-019-01998-x.
Reisser, J., Slat, B., Noble, K., Du Plessis, K., Epp, M., Proietti, M., De Sonneville, J., Becker, T.,
Pattiaratchi, C., 2015. The vertical distribution of buoyant plastics at sea: an observa-
tional study in the North Atlantic Gyre. Biogeosciences 12 (4), 1249–1256. https://
doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-1249-2015.
Rochman, C.M., 2018. Microplastics research — from sink to source in freshwater systems.
Science 80 (360), 28–29. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar7734.
Rochman, C.M., Hoellein, T., 2020. The global odyssey of plastic pollution. Science 368,
1184–1185. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc4428.
Rodrigues, D., Antunes, J., Otero, V., Sobral, P., Costa, M.H., 2020. Distribution patterns of
microplastics in seawater surface at a Portuguese Estuary and marine park. Front. En-
viron. Sci. 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2020.582217.
Rowley, K.H., Cucknell, A.C., Smith, B.D., Clark, P.F., Morritt, D., 2020. London’s river of
plastic: high levels of microplastics in the Thames water column. Sci. Total Environ.
740, 140018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140018.
Saley, A.M., Smart, A.C., Bezerra, M.F., Burnham, T.L.U., Capece, L.R., Lima, L.F.O., Carsh, A.C.,
Williams, S.L., Morgan, S.G., 2019. Microplastic accumulation and biomagnification in
a coastal marine reserve situated in a sparsely populated area. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 146,
54–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.05.065.
Scherer, C., Weber, A., Stock, F., Vurusic, S., Egerci, H., Kochleus, C., Arendt, N., Foeldi, C.,
Dierkes, G., Wagner, M., Brennholt, N., Reifferscheid, G., 2020. Comparative assess-
ment of microplastics in water and sediment of a large european river. Sci. Total En-
viron. 738, 139866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139866.
Scircle, A., Cizdziel, J.V., Tisinger, L., Anumol, T., Robey, D., 2020. Occurrence of
microplastic pollution at oyster reefs and other coastal sites in the Mississippi
sound, USA: impacts of freshwater inflows from flooding. Toxics 8. https://doi.org/
10.3390/TOXICS8020035.
Selvam, S., Jesuraja, K., Venkatramanan, S., Roy, P.D., Jeyanthi Kumari, V., 2021. Hazardous
microplastic characteristics and its role as a vector of heavy metal in groundwater
and surface water of coastal south India. J. Hazard. Mater. 402, 123786. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123786.
Shruti, V.C., Pérez-Guevara, F., Kutralam-Muniasamy, G., 2020. Metro station free drinking
water fountain - a potential "microplastics hotspot" for human consumption. Envi-
ron. Pollut. 261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114227.
Siegfried, M., Koelmans, A.A., Besseling, E., Kroeze, C., 2017. Export of microplastics from
land to sea. A modelling approach. Water Res. 127, 249–257. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.watres.2017.10.011.
Sighicelli, M., Pietrelli, L., Lecce, F., Iannilli, V., Falconieri, M., Coscia, L., Di Vito, S., Nuglio, S.,
Zampetti, G., 2018. Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of Italian Subalpine
Lakes. Environ. Pollut. 236, 645–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.02.008.
Sun, J., Dai, X., Wang, Q., van Loosdrecht, M.C.M., Ni, B.J., 2019. Microplastics in wastewa-
ter treatment plants: detection, occurrence and removal. Water Res. 152, 21–37.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.12.050.
Suteja, Y., Atmadipoera, A.S., Riani, E., Nurjaya, I.W., Nugroho, D., Cordova, M.R., 2021. Spa-
tial and temporal distribution of microplastic in surface water of tropical estuary:
case study in Benoa Bay, Bali, Indonesia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 163, 111979. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.111979.
Snyder, H., 2019. Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guide-
lines. J. Bus. Res. 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039.
Tamminga, M., Fischer, E.K., 2020. Microplastics in a deep, dimictic lake of the North Ger-
man Plain with special regard to vertical distribution patterns. Environ. Pollut. 267,
115507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115507.
Thompson, R.C., Olson, Y., Mitchell, R.P., Davis, A., Rowland, S.J., John, A.W.G., McGonigle,
D., Russell, A.E., 2004. Lost at sea: where is all the plastic? Science 304, 838. https://
doi.org/10.1126/science.1094559.
Uddin, S., Fowler, S.W., Behbehani, M., 2020. An assessment of microplastic inputs into
the aquatic environment from wastewater streams. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 160, 111538.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111538.
UNEP and GRID-Arendal, 2016. Marine Litter Vital Graphics. United Nations Environment
Programme and GRID-Arendal, Nairobi and Arendal www.unep.org, www.grida.no.
UNEP, 2020. Monitoring Plastics in Rivers and Lakes: Guidelines for the Harmonization of
Methodologies. Nairobi.
Uurasjärvi, E., Hartikainen, S., Setälä, O., Lehtiniemi, M., Koistinen, A., 2020. Microplastic
concentrations, size distribution, and polymer types in the surface waters of a
M.B. Alfonso, A.H. Arias, A.C. Ronda et al.
northern European lake. Water Environ. Res. 92, 149–156. https://doi.org/10.1002/
wer.1229.
van Emmerik, T., Schwarz, A., 2020. Plastic debris in rivers. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water
7, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1398.
van den Berg, P., Huerta-Lwanga, E., Corradini, F., Geissen, V., 2020. Sewage sludge appli-
cation as a vehicle for microplastics in eastern Spanish agricultural soils. Environ.
Pollut. 261, 114198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114198.
van der Does, M., Knippertz, P., Zschenderlein, P., Giles Harrison, R., Stuut, J.B.W., 2018.
The mysterious long-range transport of giant mineral dust particles. Sci. Adv. 4,
eaau2768. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau2768.
van Sebille, E., Wilcox, C., Lebreton, L., Maximenko, N., Hardesty, B.D., Van Franeker, J.A.,
Eriksen, M., Siegel, D., Galgani, F., Law, K.L., 2015. A global inventory of small floating
plastic debris. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 124006.
Villagran, D.M., Truchet, D.M., Buzzi, N.S., Forero Lopez, A.D., Fernández Severini, M.D.,
2020. A baseline study of microplastics in the burrowing crab (Neohelice granulata)
from a temperate southwestern Atlantic estuary. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 150. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110686.
Vroom, R.J.E., Koelmans, A.A., Besseling, E., Halsband, C., 2017. Aging of microplastics pro-
motes their ingestion by marine zooplankton. Environ. Pollut. 231, 987–996. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.088.
Wang, J., Liu, X., Li, Y., Powell, T., Wang, X., Wang, G., Zhang, P., 2019. Microplastics as con-
taminants in the soil environment: a mini-review. Sci. Total Environ. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.209.
Wang, W., Ge, J., Yu, X., Li, H., 2020. Environmental fate and impacts of microplastics in
soil ecosystems: progress and perspective. Sci. Total Environ. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134841.
Wang, W., Ndungu, A.W., Li, Z., Wang, J., 2017. Microplastics pollution in inland freshwa-
ters of China: a case study in urban surface waters of Wuhan, China. Sci. Total Envi-
ron. 575, 1369–1374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.213.
Waste Atlas, 2019. Waste management for everyone. http://www.atlas.d-waste.com/.
(Accessed 31 December 2020).
Weideman, E.A., Perold, V., Ryan, P.G., 2020. Limited long-distance transport of plastic
pollution by the Orange-Vaal River system, South Africa. Sci. Total Environ. 727,
138653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138653.
Westra, S., Alexander, L.V., Zwiers, F.W., 2013. Global increasing trends in annual maxi-
mum daily precipitation. J. Clim. 26, 3904–3918. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-
00502.1.
Wolanski, E., Elliott, M., 2015. Estuarine ecohydrology. Estuar. Ecohydrol. https://doi.org/
10.1016/B978-0-444-53066-0.X5001-6.
Wong, G., Löwemark, L., Kunz, A., 2020. Microplastic pollution of the Tamsui River and its
tributaries in northern Taiwan: spatial heterogeneity and correlation with precipita-
tion. Environ. Pollut. 260, 113935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.113935.
Wong, J.K.H., Lee, K.K., Tang, K.H.D., Yap, P.S., 2020. Microplastics in the freshwater and
terrestrial environments: prevalence, fates, impacts and sustainable solutions. Sci.
Total Environ. 719, 137512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137512.
Wright, S.L., Ulke, J., Font, A., Chan, K.L.A., Kelly, F.J., 2020. Atmospheric microplastic depo-
sition in an urban environment and an evaluation of transport. Environ. Int. 136,
105411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105411.
Xia, W., Rao, Q., Deng, X., Chen, J., Xie, P., 2020. Rainfall is a significant environmental fac-
tor of microplastic pollution in inland waters. Sci. Total Environ. 732, 139065. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139065.
Xiong, X., Zhang, K., Chen, X., Shi, H., Luo, Z., Wu, C., 2018. Sources and distribution of
microplastics in China&apos;s largest inland Lake - Qinghai Lake. Environ. Pollut.
235, 899–906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.12.081.
15
Science of the Total Environment 799 (2021) 149447
Yang, L., Zhang, Y., Kang, S., Wang, Z., Wu, C., 2021. Microplastics in soil: A review on
methods, occurrence, sources, and potential risk. Science of the Total Environment
vol. 780. Elsevier B.V., p. 146546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146546.
Yonkos, L.T., Friedel, E.A., Perez-Reyes, A.C., Ghosal, S., Arthur, C.D., 2014. Microplastics in
four estuarine rivers in the Chesapeake bay, U.S.A. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48,
14195–14202. https://doi.org/10.1021/es5036317.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.11.126.
Yukioka, S., Tanaka, S., Nabetani, Y., Suzuki, Y., Ushijima, T., Fujii, S., Takada, H., Van Tran,
Q., Singh, S., 2020. Occurrence and characteristics of microplastics in surface road
dust in Kusatsu (Japan), Da Nang (Vietnam), and Kathmandu (Nepal). Environ.
Pollut. 256, 113447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113447.
Zaki, M.R.M., Ying, P.X., Zainuddin, A.H., Razak, M.R., Aris, A.Z., 2021. Occurrence, abun-
dance, and distribution of microplastics pollution: an evidence in surface tropical
water of Klang River estuary, Malaysia. Environ. Geochem. Health 8. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10653-021-00872-8.
Zhang, K., Su, J., Xiong, X., Wu, X., Wu, C., Liu, J., 2016. Microplastic pollution of lakeshore
sediments from remote lakes in Tibet plateau,&nbsp;China. Environ. Pollut. 219,
450–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.05.048.
Zhang, Y., Gao, T., Kang, S., Sillanpää, M., 2019. Importance of atmospheric transport for
microplastics deposited in remote areas. Environ. Pollut. 254, 1–4. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envpol.2019.07.121.
Zhang, Y., Kang, S., Allen, S., Allen, D., Gao, T., Sillanpää, M., 2020. Atmospheric
microplastics: a review on current status and perspectives. Earth-Sci. Rev. 203,
103118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2020.103118.
Zhang, Y., Gao, T., Kang, S., Allen, S., Luo, X., Allen, D., 2021. Microplastics in glaciers of the
tibetan plateau: evidence for the long-range transport of microplastics. Sci. Total En-
viron. 758, 143634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143634.
Zhao, S., Zhu, L., Li, D., 2015. Microplastic in three urban estuaries, China. Environ. Pollut.
206, 597–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.08.027.
Zhao, S., Wang, T., Zhu, L., Xu, P., Wang, X., Gao, L., Li, D., 2019. Analysis of suspended
microplastics in the changjiang estuary: implications for riverine plastic load to the
ocean. Water Res. 161, 560–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.06.019.
Zhou, Q., Zhang, H., Fu, C., Zhou, Y., Dai, Z., Li, Y., Tu, C., Luo, Y., 2018. The distribution and
morphology of microplastics in coastal soils adjacent to the Bohai Sea and the Yellow
Sea. Geoderma 322, 201–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.02.015.
Zhou, Y., Liu, X., Wang, J., 2019. Characterization of microplastics and the association of
heavy metals with microplastics in suburban soil of central China. Sci. Total Environ.
694, 133798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133798.
Zhou, Y., Wang, J., Zou, M., Jia, Z., Zhou, S., Li, Y., 2020. Microplastics in soils: a review of
methods, occurrence, fate, transport, ecological and environmental risks. Sci. Total
Environ. 748, 141368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141368.
Zhou, Y., He, G., Jiang, X., Yao, L., Ouyang, L., Liu, X., Liu, W., Liu, Y., 2021. Microplastic con-
tamination is ubiquitous in riparian soils and strongly related to elevation, precipita-
tion and population density. J. Hazard. Mater. 411, 125178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2021.125178.
Zhu, X., 2021. The plastic cycle – an unknown branch of the carbon cycle. Front. Mar. Sci.
7, 2019–2022. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.609243.