Science of the Total Environment 875 (2023) 162644

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

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

Plastics in the global environment assessed through material flow analysis,

degradation and environmental transportation
⁎
A.E. Schwarz , S.M.C. Lensen, E. Langeveld, L.A. Parker, J.H. Urbanus
Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), Princetonlaan 8, 3584 CB Utrecht, Netherlands

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

• Mass flow analysis is used to assess yearly

environmental plastic emissions.
• In 2017, 9.5 megatonnes micro and
macroplastics were emitted to the envi-
ronment.
• Accumulation and dispersion of plastics in
the environment are assessed until 2050.
• There are at least 2.15 and at most 5.3
gigatonnes of environmental plastics in
2050.
• Plastics accumulate mainly in terrestrial
and less in aquatic environments.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Editor: Paromita Chakraborty Knowledge on environmental plastic emission and spatial and temporal accumulation is vital for the development of
successful mitigation strategies and risk assessments of plastics. In this study, emissions of both micro and macro plas-
Keywords: tic from the plastic value chain to the environment were assessed on a global level through a mass flow analysis (MFA).
Mass flow analysis All countries, 10 sectors, 8 polymers and 7 environmental compartments (terrestrial, freshwater or oceanic) are distin-
Plastic pollution
guished in the model. The results assess a loss of 0.8 million tonnes (mt) of microplastics and 8.7 mt of macroplastics to
Microplastics
Accumulation
the global environment in 2017. This is respectively 0.2 % and 2.1 % of plastics produced in the same year. The pack-
Degradation aging sector contributed most for macroplastic emissions, and tyre wear for microplastic emissions. With the MFA re-
Environment sults, accumulation, degradation and environmental transportation are considered in the Accumulation and dispersion
model (ADM) until 2050. This model predicts macro- and microplastic accumulation in the environment to 2.2
gigatonnes (Gt) and 3.1 Gt in 2050 respectively (scenario: yearly consumption increase of 4 %). This will be 30 %
less when a yearly production reduction of 1 % until 2050 is modeled to 1.5 and 2.3 Gt macro and microplastics respec-
tively. Almost 2.15 Gt of micro and macroplastics accumulate in the environment until 2050 with zero plastic produc-
tion after 2022 due to leakage from landfills and degradation processes. Results are compared to other modeling
studies quantifying plastic emissions to the environment. The current study predicts lower emissions to ocean and
higher emissions to surface waters like lakes and rivers. Non aquatic, terrestrial compartments are observed to accumu-
late most plastics emitted to the environment. The approach used results in a flexible and adaptable model that ad-
dresses plastic emissions to the environment over time and space, with detail on country level and environmental
compartments.

⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Anna.Schwarz@tno.nl (A.E. Schwarz).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162644
Received 30 October 2022; Received in revised form 31 January 2023; Accepted 1 March 2023
Available online 7 March 2023
0048-9697/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
A.E. Schwarz et al.
1. Introduction
Plastics, defined as synthetic organic polymers, are rapidly accumulat-
ing in various natural environments. This is a result from losses of plastic
products, pre-products and fragments that occur during production, use,
and end-of-life. Plastics have been observed in almost all global river sys-
tems and even in rural areas, such as polar regions and mountain glaciers
(Bergmann et al., 2022; Napper et al., 2020; Van Emmerik and Schwarz,
2019). Since measurements have started, studies have indicated an
exponential increase in environmental plastic concentrations in oceans
(Lebreton et al., 2018) and sediments (Martin et al., 2017). Likely, environ-
mental plastic concentrations will continue to intensify, as the growing pre-
dicted plastic consumption in the future will likely increase plastic
emissions to the environment (Borrelle et al., 2020). Plastic products are
light, durable and versatile, which has benefits during the use phase of
the product and the reason why plastics are often chosen as alternative to
heavier materials such as glass or metal in various sectors (Candido et al.,
2006; Espi et al., 2006). However, once lost to the environment these char-
acteristics impose negative effects. Firstly, the durability results in slow and
incomplete degradation processes. Microplastics (<5 mm) and nanoplastics
(<1 μm) are formed when plastics degrade, a process which may take up to
2500 years before mineralization occurs (Chamas et al., 2020). This en-
dorses in a high environmental persistency for plastics, which is an impor-
tant factor in toxicity indicators for ecosystem and human health. Secondly,
plastics have a high potential for transportation throughout the environ-
ment, increasing the exposure area of the material. The high spatial and
temporal exposure enhances the environmental risks of plastics on species,
ecosystems and human health. Recently, microplastics have been detected
in human blood stream and human breast milk (Leslie et al., 2022; Ragusa
et al., 2022). To limit exposure and hence risks of macro, micro and
nanoplastics to the environment and human health, plastic emissions
have to be significantly reduced. To support any decision making on mitiga-
tion to reduce plastic emissions to the environment, knowledge on emission
sources and pathways of plastics to the environment has to be collected. Be-
sides mapping these emissions, once plastics are in a specific environment,
its effects change spatially and temporally due to degradation and transpor-
tation mechanisms. These patterns are important to include in an assess-
ment, as it can shed light accumulation zones and mechanisms to monitor
for risk assessment.
Since 1980, numerous studies have been conducted on plastic measure-
ments in the environment to assess quantities and type of plastic pollution
at a specific location at a specific moment in time, such as rivers or oceans
(Lechner et al., 2014; Tramoy et al., 2019; van Emmerik et al., 2018). Al-
though extremely relevant to map the problems of environmental plastic
pollution, these studies often lack the potential to map the full picture of
plastic emissions, transport, degradation and accumulation. Furthermore,
item identification during observation studies is often limited in the possi-
bility to trace back plastic pollution to its source (Schwarz and van
Emmerik, 2022). Plastic products are used and lost among all sectors, in nu-
merous applications, used in different manners and have different lifetimes.
To assess and learn about the complex value chain of plastics, mass flow
analysis (MFA) can be used to track and quantify materials through a de-
fined system. Therefore, MFA can be applied to estimate plastic emissions
from the value chain to the environment and identify the fate of these lost
plastics in the environment. Additionally, an MFA framework can be used
to measure the impact of various mitigation strategies, such as policies,
clean-ups, material replacements and more for reducing plastic accumula-
tion in the environment. Various studies have applied mass flow analysis
to estimate plastic emissions to the environment (Amadei et al., 2022; Bai
and Li, 2020; Deshpande et al., 2020; Kawecki and Nowack, 2019; Luan
et al., 2022; Ryberg et al., 2019). However, these studies are either limited
spatially (Amadei et al., 2022; Deshpande et al., 2020; Kawecki and
Nowack, 2019; Luan et al., 2022; Sieber et al., 2020), with respect to envi-
ronmental compartment (Amadei et al., 2022; Ryberg et al., 2019), over
time (Ryberg et al., 2019) or lacking the link to polluting sources
(Koutnik et al., 2021a). The missing link of pollution sources highlights
2
Science of the Total Environment 875 (2023) 162644
missing information on environmental fate of plastics in the literature, re-
sulting in unsupported assumptions among the literature on where plastic
is coming from and how it transports through the environment (Boucher
et al., 2020; Derraik, 2002; Jambeck et al., 2015). Therefore, these studies
lack the option to assess the behavior of plastics in the environment and are
therefore limited in the use for global mitigation strategy assessments.
In this study, a MFA is developed to determine plastic emissions to the
environment from the plastic value chain to multiple environmental com-
partments. The MFA framework developed by Kawecki and Nowack
(2019) is taken as a baseline and extended with new emission pathways,
sources and compartments. Environmental compartments include multiple
terrestrial compartments, freshwater and oceanic environments. Based on
the yearly MFA, an accumulation and dispersion model (ADM) was devel-
oped to assess the spatial and temporal plastic accumulation in the environ-
ment. Processes that are assessed by the ADM include degradation, landfill
storage emissions and environmental transport to similar and additional
environmental compartments. To evaluate the effect of future plastic con-
sumption until 2050 on environmental plastic accumulation, three future
scenarios for plastic consumption are assessed for the ADM.
2. Materials and method
2.1. Mass flow analysis model
A MFA was developed to assess the total amount of plastic emitted to
the environment for one year. The MFA is based on a collection of processes
within defined system boundaries and a list of transfer coefficients (TCs).
The TCs are based on a probabilistic percentile distribution of mass flowing
through the system during production of products, transport, manufactur-
ing, use, and waste collection and treatment. The mass flows of plastics
are split per country, polymer type and sector, where the defined flows rep-
resent plastics moving through the value chain or plastics being emitted to
the environment. As a baseline for the TCs, the study from Kawecki and
Nowack, 2019 was used, who developed a MFA with flows to the environ-
ment specific for the situation in Switzerland. The approach to their proba-
bilistic MFA and the underlying assumptions are explained thoroughly in
their publication. After review of this model, additional data sources were
collected to improve the MFA mass flows and make it applicable to a global
scale. These improvements are described in the following sections. Fig. 1
represents a simplified representation of the TCs in the MFA. The MFA
was developed in python v3.10.1.
The TCs that are defined are based on a matrix approach. The model is
constructed with flows and nodes. Various flows can originate from one
starting node, and multiple flows can end up in a node. All starting flows
add up to one and resemble a mass percentile fraction of plastic that
flows to the new node. The TCs together form a list which subsequently
describes the system by means of a matrix representation. This matrix
representation is inverted, resulting in a table that describes which nodes
plastic material ends up within the system. Because the MFA does not
contain circular or backflow processes, cascading of all TCs is sufficient to
calculate material fractions. The inverted matrix table is multiplied by
the material input masses, which are specified per country, sector and
polymer. This results in a table with total mass flow towards the ‘end-
compartments’: processes from which no mass flows out. These are
defined as either environmental (oceanic, freshwater or terrestrial),
technical, or storage (Table 1). Environmental compartments are con-
sidered ‘lost’ from the system and are end compartments for the yearly
MFA. Technical compartments are considered part of the system and in-
clude either re-use, recycling, or incineration. Landfill processes are
considered ‘stored' plastics, which is distinguished as it will still interact
over time with environmental compartments.
2.2. Plastic consumption inputs
To assess the total mass flows through the system per country, polymer
and sector, various data sources were used. For the plastic consumption,
A.E. Schwarz et al.
Fig. 1. Simplified visualization of the Mass Flow analysis model of plastics and their littering pathways to the environment and potential human exposure. Dotted lines
represent flows within the plastic value chain, dotted lines represent flows to the environment. Waste water treatment is abbreviated to WWT. Full model flows are
visualized in supplementary material C.
data from the OECD global plastics outlook dataset per region was used for
2017 (OECD, 2022). When country specific data was not available, the
available regional datasets were scaled to country using the Gross Domestic
Product (GDP). Flows covering export and import of plastic polymers, prod-
ucts and waste were excluded from the assessment. The availability of im-
port and export data of plastic and other materials on a global scale is
currently lacking which makes it difficult to include this type of data. How-
ever, the authors are aware of the potential significant role of import and
export on plastic production, consumption and waste management data.
A division of plastics into polymer type and sector was made using available
datasets (EUROMAP, 2016; Geyer et al., 2017; PlasticsEurope, 2018). Miss-
ing data points were added using single and multiple regression analyses
further described in supplementary material A. Several sectors were not ad-
dressed separately in the MFA from Kawecki and Nowack (2019) and were
included. These include: consumption of rubber tyres, plastics in personal
care and cosmetic products (PCCP) and fishing gear. For these sectors, sep-
arate assessments on consumption data were included in the MFA. Missing
flows that were included are emissions from production, recycling, packag-
ing use. The background on the plastic consumption calculations per coun-
try are elaborated in supplementary material A.
2.2.1. Correction for lifetime
Plastic product lifetimes depend on use of the products, strongly linked
to the sector in which the plastic is used. For several plastic products in sec-
tors, especially in automotive, electronical equipment and construction, the
time that products are in use, or the lifetime, exceeds one year. As a result,
the plastic remains ‘in stock’ and is released as waste after multiple years.
An annual MFA, without corrections for stocks and product lifetimes,
doesn't assess the emissions on a yearly basis but on a lifetime (cohort)
basis instead. This can result in a biased view on the emissions from a sec-
tor, especially in end of life. For example, specific construction plastics have
a lifetime of 35 years on average, and a product produced in 2017 is re-
leased for end of life in 2052. Plastics in the packaging sector produced in
2017 is also released in 2017 due to the lifetime <1 year. To correct for
product lifetime, the plastics associated with a specific sector are averaged
to a yearly emission, where it is assumed that all plastic products within a
sector have similar lifetimes. This approach results in generalized lifetimes
which apply on average to products within the sector, a similar approach
was applied by Geyer et al., 2017 (Table 2). The lifetime correction was ap-
plied to waste treatment and emissions that occur during production, use
phase and the end of life. For example, the flows during the use phase of
3
Science of the Total Environment 875 (2023) 162644
construction plastics, which include abrasion and wear of 1 % to
microplastics, are based on the full lifetime. For the yearly MFA, these
are therefore divided over 35 years (Table 2). In the ADM, lifetimes
are addressed differently and are discussed in Section 2.4.
2.3. Mass flow analysis- flows
2.3.1. Country dependent flows
The plastic flows, representing emissions to the environment, from the
MFA of Kawecki and Nowack, 2019 are specific for Switzerland. To make
the model applicable to all countries, the flows were divided between coun-
try dependent flows and standardized flows. The country dependent flows
are variable depending on circumstances in a specific country. The data col-
lection for the country dependent flows and data gap standardizations are
discussed in supplementary material B. The flows that were made country
dependent are listed below.
1. Municipal plastic waste collection rates
2. Municipal plastic waste treatment - Landfill
3. Municipal plastic waste treatment - Incineration
4. Municipal plastic waste treatment - Recycling and re-use
5. Wastewater treatment
6. Sludge treatment and application
7. Tyre abrasion, infill and road types
2.3.2. Standardized flows; production, manufacturing and transportation
During production, manufacturing and transportation, emissions to the
environment occur. Emissions in the production phase are included in the
model of Kawecki and Nowack, 2019, and were assumed to have a value
between 0.0001 and 0.01 %. These loss values during production and trans-
port were adapted using literature values and are summarized in supple-
mentary material C. These quantities were assumed to be excluded from
the consumption quantities reported by the OECD. With this approach,
emissions during production are allocated to the country where the plastic
product is consumed. Higher use phase emissions occur in countries with a
high plastic production, while these do not occur in the country that import
most of their plastics. In the current MFA model, plastic emissions prior to
the use phase are assigned to the country of consumption, however these
emissions could be assigned to the country of production in order to assess
the spatial distribution of these plastics more accurately. What country is re-
sponsible for the occurring plastic emissions to the environment along the
A.E. Schwarz et al. Science of the Total Environment 875 (2023) 162644

Table 1
Defined end compartments for both microplastic (MP) and macroplastics. Types that are included are three types of environment, compartments where plastics is ‘stored' and
can be leaked from, and technical end compartments where plastics receive either a second life or are eliminated.
End compartment name Type Description

Ocean Oceanic environmental compartment Flows towards oceans or seas

Ocean (MP)
Surface water
Surface water (MP)
Roadside
Road side (MP)
Residential soil
Residential soil (MP)
Natural soil
Natural soil (MP)
Agricultural soil
Agricultural soil (MP)
Subsurface (MP)
Open Dump
Controlled landfill
Sanitary landfill
Elimination
Second. Material
Oceanic environmental compartment
Freshwater environmental compartment l
Freshwater environmental compartment
Terrestrial environmental compartment
Terrestrial environmental compartment
Terrestrial environmental compartment
Terrestrial environmental compartment
Terrestrial environmental compartment
Terrestrial environmental compartment
Terrestrial environmental compartment
Terrestrial environmental compartment
Terrestrial environmental compartment
Stored
Stored
Stored
Technical
Technical
Flows towards oceans or seas (MP)
Flows towards all surface waters (rivers, lakes, canals, streams)
Flows towards all surface waters (rivers, lakes, canals, streams) (MP)
Flows towards roadside
Flows towards roadside (MP)
Flows towards soils around cities and populated areas
Flows towards soils around cities and populated areas (MP)
Flows towards rural and non-populated areas
Flows towards rural and non-populated areas (MP)
Flows towards soil used for agriculture
Flows towards soil used for agriculture (MP)
Flows towards soil used below the top layer of the soil (MP)
An exposed, open landfill disposal site for solid waste which is not engineered, protected or
managed. Includes illegal disposal sites.
Engineered and managed landfills for solid waste disposal excluding landfill gas collection
systems (Kaza et al., 2018)
Engineered and managed landfill, isolated from the environment including gas collection systems
(Kaza et al., 2018)
Plastics are eliminated, most likely through incineration of the material
Plastics are re-used in undefined products

value chain is a discussion that has to be executed, since the of these emis- These flows to the environment are fully covered in supplementary mate-
sions occur might vary. Furthermore, it was assumed that the emissions in rial C. From littering and through other flows, both micro and macro plastic
the phase prior to the use face are similar for all polymers. These loss rates potentially end up in surface water and wastewater flows. In various coun-
might vary depending on polymer type, production method and transport tries, wastewater treatment is available. The degree of wastewater treat-
distances. However, little information is available on pre- production and ment and hence micro and macroplastic removal from Industry and
how this varies per process and polymer type, which is why similar flow Wastewater is assessed per country (Peano, 2020). Additionally, sludge is
data for all sectors and polymers is applied. used for various applications, including agricultural and natural land fertil-
ization. A country based estimate on sludge application is used which is
2.3.3. Standardized flows; use phase elaborated in supplementary material C.
During the use phase of products, microplastics are released to the envi-
ronment due to abrasion, wear and tear of materials. These microplastic 2.3.5. Standardizes flows; human uptake and exposure
emissions are included in the MFA for several products, including textiles, Human exposure was modeled to identify the main sources and origi-
packaging, agricultural foils and construction plastics. Most of these were nating sectors of potential human intake of microplastics. Two pathways
already included in the model of Kawecki and Nowack, (2019). Packaging were included, through indoor and outdoor air to lungs, and through inges-
microplastic release and tyre abrasion were included as well. Additionally, tion to intestines. From these human compartments, fractions are assumed
macroplastic emissions occur during the use phase and include all emis- to be potentially taken up in human tissue. In supplementary material C, a
sions related to littering. Littering was kept limited to the packaging and ag- description of the assumptions is given.
ricultural sector, and are similar to Kawecki and Nowack, (2019).
Additionally, emissions from fishing gear to the ocean were included. All 2.3.6. Missing flows
loss quantities defined in the flows cover the full lifetime of the products Excluded in the assessment are emissions from marine coatings, paint
and are allocated to the country the plastics are produced in. This includes and road abrasion. Also, polymer diversity within sectors are limited to
fishing gear, which most likely will occur in international waters. All added eight polymers which are most widely used, together covering about
flows are summarized in supplementary material C. 73 % of polymers used in the EU (PlasticsEurope, 2019). Any plastics
from other polymers, such as engineering plastics and high-end plastics,
2.3.4. Standardized flows; end-of-life
The plastic emissions during end-of-life are adapted for municipal waste
Table 2
as waste practices are variable per country. All plastic from different sectors
Lifetimes of sectors and subsectors that are defined in the model. Sources: (Geyer
are collected through their respective waste collection system. For mixed
et al., 2017; Jan Kole et al., 2017).
waste collection for municipal waste, adaptations were possible with data
provided by the World Bank (Kaza et al., 2018). This dataset also provides Sector Product examples Estimated lifetime
(average and spread in years)
information on collection for waste from other sectors, such as electronics,
construction and agriculture. However, this data was found to be too lim- Automotive Composites, dashboards 13
Electrical equipment Computer parts, 8 (6–10)
ited to use for a global assessment and skewed to specific countries.
fridge parts, cables
Hence, this was left similar to original MFA, hereby risking underestimation Construction Isolation plastic, pipes 35 (28–42)
of end of life waste from these sectors as it is assumed that waste treatment Agriculture Pipes, films, nets 1 (0.5–1.5)
in Switzerland has higher recycling and recovery rates than the global aver- Packaging Bottles, films 1 (0.5–1.5)
Other plastics Household products 3 (2–4)
age. The statistics of The World Bank do provide uncollected waste fraction
Textiles Clothing, geotextiles 5 (4–6)
of municipal waste per country based on the statistic ‘total waste not col- Tyres Car and lorry tyres 6 (5–7)
lected’. From this uncollected fraction, there are flows towards the environ- Fishery equipment Nets 3
ment. From the actual collected waste, several waste management options (part of agriculture)
are available and depend on the country. Per country, collected waste is ei- Primary microplastics Microbeads 1 (0.5–1.5)
(PCCP) (part of others)
ther recycled, landfilled (sanitary, unsanitary, open dump) or incinerated.

4
A.E. Schwarz et al.
are excluded in the assessment as these are used in smaller quantities within
the sectors. These polymers are mostly used in medical applications, textiles
(e.g. nylon), electronic equipment (e.g. polycarbonates) and the automotive
sector (PlasticsEurope, 2019). Due to the higher production costs of these
plastics, emissions are likely lower compared to cheaper, commodity plas-
tics. Furthermore, polymers of these plastics are found in limited quantities
in the environment (Schwarz et al., 2019).
2.4. Accumulation and dispersion model (ADM)
2.4.1. Modeling framework
The accumulation and dispersion model (ADM) was developed to assess
micro and macro plastic accumulation over time in the environment. An ad-
ditional set of coefficients was developed to include three types of plastic
behavior in the environment:
– Dispersion in the environment, from one environmental compartment
to another
– Degradation from macro to microplastics in the environment
– Degradation and macroplastic emissions from stored plastics; open
dumps, controlled landfills and sanitary landfills
The removal of micro and nanoplastics due to mineralization or sedi-
mentation is left out of scope due to missing data and information on the
timeframe, quantities and formation of intermediate products in the envi-
ronment (Baensch-Baltruschat et al., 2021; Du et al., 2021). The input for
the ADM is the output of the yearly MFA model for the year 2017. The
mass input per year is scaled based on the production of plastics. For the
years 1950–2022, production data is known (Geyer et al., 2017; Plastics
Europe, 2018). For 2022–2050, growth factors are used based on future
scenarios (see Section 2.4.3). The total mass within the end compartment
is a result of the following sum:
!
X
N X
N 
M Ci ;y ¼ ACi ;y þ M Ci ;y−1  1− DCi ;Cj þ M Ck ;y−1  DCk ;Ci
j¼1 k¼1
where there are N compartments, and i, j and k are indices = 1, 2, …, N re-
ferring to compartments 1 to N, and where
ACi ,y is the added mass from input (from MFA model) in compartment Ci
at year y.
M Ci ,y is the mass in compartment Ci at year y.
DCi ,Cj is the degradation coefficient from compartment Ci to
compartment Cj.
Where the total (t) mass in compartment x (Cx) in year y is the sum of
new (n) mass added to the compartment that year (Cxn,y), the mass in com-
partment C from the previous year (Cx,y-1) which still remains in the com-
partment after degradation and dispersion processes have taken place on
this mass. For lifetime, it is assumed that plastic products will be in use
until the lifetime has elapsed, after which the material enters the end-of-
life. Like the MFA, the ADM was developed using python v3.10.1.
2.4.2. Environmental transport and degradation processes
Due to their lightweight properties, plastics have a high tendency to be
transported and dispersed through the environment. Within a yearly MFA,
the transport through the environment is difficult to assess. Therefore, the
legacy of emitted plastics and location of accumulation zones in environ-
mental compartments are not properly identified. Furthermore, level of
degradation is highly dependent on the type of environment due to differ-
ences in UV exposure, mechanical degradation potential, and presence of
bacteria. For the environmental transport, much information is still lacking
on how macro and microplastics are transported throughout the environ-
ment. A multimedia modeling approach can be used to assess fate of parti-
cles and chemicals in the environment, including plastics (Koelmans et al.,
2019). This modeling approach can be used to assess environmental
Science of the Total Environment 875 (2023) 162644
transport from compartments defined in the MFA. In terms of transport, it
is known that plastics are displaced from land to freshwater, and back.
Both these processes are strongly affected by type of land, weather condi-
tions, and flood frequencies (Liro et al., 2020; Mellink et al., 2022;
Roebroek et al., 2021). Additionally, plastics can be stored within rivers
in vegetation or sediment (Van Emmerik and Schwarz, 2019). This depends
on effects of plastic properties such as density and shape, but also biofilm,
formation aggregation with sediment, human activity and presence of veg-
etation and structures (Amaral-Zettler et al., 2021; Kaiser et al., 2017; Liro
et al., 2020; Rangel-Buitrago et al., 2021; Schreyers et al., 2021; Schwarz
et al., 2019). Even microplastics are found to retain in river sediments,
especially high density polymers and in low stream velocity locations (He
et al., 2021; Koutnik et al., 2021b; Nizzetto et al., 2016). However,
microplastics are transported further and faster than macroplastic, and
also fibers are found to be more easily transported than fragments
(He et al., 2021; Koutnik et al., 2021a). A fraction of plastics is transported
from freshwater to oceanic environments (Meijer et al., 2021). Here, plas-
tics can remain afloat, beach, or sink to sediments (Kaandorp et al.,
2020). These rates are affected by biofilm formation and particle properties
as well as oceanic and sea currents (De La Fuente et al., 2021; Kaandorp
et al., 2020; van Sebille et al., 2015). With literature information available,
estimated on plastic transportation in the environment are made, focusing
on plastic transport between freshwater and oceanic compartments for
both micro and macroplastics (Table 3). Transport from terrestrial environ-
ments to freshwater and oceanic environments is excluded from the ADM
due to lack of available data. Environmental fate assumptions for the
model are fully described in supplementary material D.
With that, also degradation rates and effects of the environment on deg-
radation speed have been studied, but studies are still limited in numbers.
From available studies and data, assumptions were made on degradation
speeds in different environment. Terrestrial, freshwater and marine
compartments were distinguished, and a link is made to UV and no UV
exposure, which is found to be one of the main degradation mechanisms
 for plastics (Chamas et al., 2020). Degradation processes are described
in supplementary material D.
2.4.3. Future scenarios
To model the future situation after 2022, three scenarios for plastic pro-
duction are assumed. In the first scenario, the business-as-usual growth in
plastic production is used, where plastic production and consumption con-
tinues to grow as in 2010–2020, which is 4 % yearly (OECD, 2022). No
changes in composition of polymers and sectors are assumed for this sce-
nario. In the second scenario, a plastic reduction scenario is applied with
a 1 % decrease in plastic consumption. This scenario assumed limitations
on plastic production by policy, such as the EU single plastic ban (EU,
2021). In the last scenario, a strict zero plastic production scenario is
assessed, where plastic production equals zero after 2022. Plastics already
accumulated up to that point and in use by society will remain as such.
3. Results
3.1. Plastic emissions per country
The global MFA resulted in a total plastic emission of 0.8 million tonnes
(mt) of microplastics and 8.7 mt of macroplastics entering the environment
in 2017. Respectively, this corresponds to 0.2 % and 2.0 % of global plastic
consumption in 2017 (432 mt). Full flowcharts of the MFA are available in
supplementary material E. There is a strong variation in quantities of plastic
lost to the environment per country, both for macro and microplastics
(Fig. 2a and b). For macroplastics, most plastics are leaked from Southeast
Asian countries, of which most are lost in China, India, Thailand and
Indonesia. Also larger countries with high population and high income
have high macroplastic emissions, including United states, Russia and
Italy. Microplastic emissions are highest in higher income countries (HIC)
and upper middle income countries (UMC), including USA, China, Japan
5
A.E. Schwarz et al. Science of the Total Environment 875 (2023) 162644

Table 3
Environmental transport of plastics between freshwater and oceanic environments, for both microplastics and macroplastics. Assumptions and literature are discussed in sup-
plementary material D.
From and to compartments Percentage division over compartments

From To Low density polymer PET High density polymer

Surface water Freshwater sediment 40 % 89 % 100 %

Surface water Ocean 1.2 % 0.2% 0%
Surface water Shoreline 51 % 9.8% 0%
Surface water Surface water 7.8% 1.5% 0%
Ocean Ocean 9% 1.7% 0%
Ocean Ocean sediment 40 % 89 % 100 %
Ocean Beach 51 % 9.8% 0%

and several European countries. Also Brazil, India, Thailand and Russia
have high emissions of microplastics to the environment.
To investigate the contribution per sector, the results were analyzed
based on global income class of the country (Kaza et al., 2018). For
macroplastics, mainly packaging plastics (90 %) and other plastic products
(5 %) end up into the environment, especially in Upper middle income
countries (UMC) and Lower middle income countries (LMC) (Fig. 3a).
LMC and UMC plastic emissions are higher compared to low income coun-
tries (LIC) and high income countries (HIC). This is a result from two
factors. The first factor is a higher plastic consumption due to higher eco-
nomic activities and GDP. This in combination with poor waste manage-
ment, including low collection rates and mismanaged waste, results in
significant plastic emissions to the environment. For HIC, waste collection
is high and macroplastic emissions are mostly from littering of packaging
and agricultural plastics. However, end-of-life of products from industrial
sectors is not properly mapped in this study, resulting in lower emissions
and likely an underestimation from these sectors. In LIC and LMC, emis-
sions mostly originate from the non-collected waste fraction, which end
up in residential soil and in surface waters through stormwater drainage
(Fig. 3b). Although the fishery sector has a relatively low plastic consump-
tion, the emissions of macroplastic to the oceanic environment has a contri-
bution of about 6 % of total macroplastics lost. For microplastics, most
emissions are caused by tyre wear (Fig. 4a). These are mostly emitted to
roadsides, but in smaller quantities to surface water and natural soil, as
these microplastic are transported through air as well. A similar pattern is
visible as for macroplastics, as HIC and UMC have higher consumption
numbers and hence higher microplastic emissions. Additionally, the agri-
cultural sector contributes to the total microplastic emissions, where film
degradation contribute most (7 %). Also packaging degradation is signifi-
cant in HIC and UMC countries. In total, automotive, construction and
EEE plastic contribute in small amounts to total plastic emissions for both
micro and macroplastics (>1 %). It should be considered that automotive,
EEE and construction plastic have a longer lifetime and have more value, re-
sulting in lower emissions in the yearly assessment. Additionally, the swiss
based waste management for automotive, construction and EEE which is
used for all countries, could lead to an underestimation of plastic emissions

Fig. 2. Plastic emissions to the environment in 2017 for 241 countries, on a logarithmic scale. a) macroplastic emissions. b) microplastic emissions (MP).

6
A.E. Schwarz et al. Science of the Total Environment 875 (2023) 162644

Fig. 3. Macroplastic emissions to the environment, per sector, environmental compartment and per country type. A) per sector, based on the mean value per income class
(Kaza et al., 2018) B) sum of all lost plastic per environmental compartment.

7
A.E. Schwarz et al. Science of the Total Environment 875 (2023) 162644

Fig. 4. Microplastic emissions (MP) to the environment, per sector, environmental compartment and per country type. A) per sector, based on the mean value per income class
(Kaza et al., 2018) B) sum of all lost plastic per environmental compartment.

8
A.E. Schwarz et al. Science of the Total Environment 875 (2023) 162644

Fig. 5. Accumulation of a) macroplastics and b) microplastics (MP), from 1950 to 2050, divided by the final environmental compartment the plastics end up, including
transport between the compartments. No degradation processes for microplastic is included in the analysis.

9
A.E. Schwarz et al.
from these sectors. PCCP contribution to microplastic is limited in most
countries, but contribution of this source is relevant. This is a result of
poorer wastewater treatment which occurs even in HIC countries
(Fig. 4a).
3.2. Accumulation and dispersion model
Depending on the growth scenario for future plastic consumption, both
micro and macroplastics will accumulate in different patterns. For the busi-
ness as usual scenario, macroplastic and microplastic emissions in 2050 is
modeled at 2.2 gigatonnes (Gt) and 3.1 Gt respectively. For the reduced
growth scenario, this will be 1.5 and 2.3 Gt. In the zero plastic produc-
tion scenario, 0.9 and 1.3 Gt (Fig. 5a and b). Hence, even without any
growth of plastic consumption in the future, almost 2.15 Gt of plastic
is modeled to accumulate in the environment, potentially posing risks
to human and ecosystem health. According to the ADM, microplastics
will outnumber macroplastics in terms of mass. Due to lack of accurate
data, no microplastic removal processes are included in the model,
hence no plastic is disappearing from the modeled environmental
system. This leads to an overestimation as removal processes like miner-
alization and biomineralization are excluded (Royer et al., 2018). How-
ever, these mineralization processes are found to be slow, with several
nanomole per gram per day (Royer et al., 2018). In terms of environ-
mental compartment, most macro and micro plastics accumulate on
land, in natural, residential and subsurface soils. In aquatic environ-
ments, freshwater sediment accumulate most plastics. The macroplastic
share is larger within sediments, as in these compartments, degradation
from macro to microplastic is assumed slower compared to other
compartments due to absence of UV. Oceanic environments also accu-
mulate plastics, but in lower quantities compared to rivers, showing
that river and freshwater systems have a high accumulation potential,
especially along shorelines, riverbeds and in freshwater sediments.
Although accumulation potential can vary per river, patterns are
observed in multiple monitoring studies to river debris and used as
modeling input (van Emmerik et al., 2022). These include accumulation
in lakes, sediments and tidal areas (Ivar do Sul et al., 2018; Kooi et al.,
2018; van Emmerik et al., 2022). Plastics afloat in oceans, at ocean sed-
iments and at beaches are found to be mainly composed of emissions
from the fishery sector, and tend to quickly disappear from the ‘floating
plastic’ compartment when zero plastics are being produced. Overall,
most plastics in the environment originate due to inappropriate waste
management in end of life, which is properly included for sectors col-
lected through municipal waste. Also from landfills which are not prop-
erly managed, plastics can still leak into the environment over the years.
This includes waste from the packaging sector, textiles and other plastic
products.
Table 4
Summary of studies assessing plastic emission to the environment and comparison to the current study with values in the final column.
Study Scope
(Ryberg et al., 2019) Global, all compartments
(Lobelle et al., 2022) Netherlands, beach and shoreline (riverbank) macroplastic
(Navarre et al., 2022) Netherlands, packaging only, including export of waste
(Kawecki and Nowack, 2019) Switzerland, excluding rubber
(Sieber et al., 2020) Rubber from tyres, Switzerland, including accumulation
(Luan et al., 2022) China, all compartments, excluding rubber
(Meijer et al., 2021) Plastics in rivers to ocean
(Borrelle et al., 2020) Global, aquatic environments
(Jambeck et al., 2015) Global, land (50 km coastline) to ocean in 2015
10
Science of the Total Environment 875 (2023) 162644
4. Discussion
4.1. Comparison to other studies
Several studies have used a MFA to model plastic emissions to the envi-
ronment. An extensive summary of studies with plastic emission estimates
and observations is given in Schwarz and Emmerik, 2022 and used here to
compare to the current study (Schwarz and van Emmerik, 2022). A selec-
tion of the most relevant studies with scope and value is made in Table 4.
The modeling approach used in the current study allows for the scaling
and comparison to multiple studies, as the model can be aggregated on
both country and environmental compartment. Ryberg et al., 2019 pub-
lished a MFA of global plastic emissions to the environment, however did
not distinguish environmental compartment or accumulation and disper-
sion among different environmental compartments over time, which was
included in the current study. Microplastic emissions in the current study
are lower than estimated by Ryberg et al., 2019 whilst macroplastic emis-
sions are higher. One explanation is that the current study excluded
microplastic sources from paint abrasion, which are significant in the
assessment of Ryberg et al., 2019 (19 %). Also the methodology for lifetime
correction can result in a different emission profile for both micro and
macroplastics per year, where both Ryberg et al. (2019) and Kawecki and
Nowack (2019) developed a product lifetime MFA instead of a yearly
MFA. The local, more precise mapping of end of life of municipal waste in
the current study can explain the increase in macroplastic emissions to
the environment. Macroplastics litter in the current study and in Ryberg
et al., 2019, is a result from mismanaged waste, especially in LIC and
LMC countries. To assess plastic emissions to the environment in China,
an MFA approach is used as well (Luan et al., 2022). Interestingly, Luan
et al., 2022 reports a significantly higher estimate for both micro and
macro plastic emissions. The study states similar results to Ryberg et al.,
2019 even though their estimates are significantly lower while looking at
a global scale. For Switzerland, emissions in the current study are signifi-
cantly higher compared to the study of Kawecki and Nowack, 2019.
Although additional emission pathways have been added to the model,
most likely the significant increase can be explained by higher plastic con-
sumption data used in the current study, as losses in all sectors and for all
polymers are higher. In the current study, the OECD data was used while
in Kawecki and Nowack, 2019, Eurostat data was used (Kawecki and
Nowack, 2019). The difference in data input shows the importance of
assessing import and export between countries and reliable plastic con-
sumption data per country and per sector. On the other hand, swiss rubber
emissions from microplastics are a factor 2 higher compared to the current
study (Sieber et al., 2020). For the Netherlands, MFA methodology has
been used to predict macroplastics on shorelines and beaches, and this is
crosschecked with observation data, creating a unique bridge between
modeling and observational studies (Lobelle et al., 2022). Compared to
Value of study (in tonnes) Value from current study (tonnes)
6.2 mt macroplastics (CI: 2.0–20.4 mt) 8.7 mt Macroplastic
3.0 mt. microplastics (CI: 1.5–5.2 mt) 0.8 mt Microplastic in 2017
0.02 kt on beaches 0.35 kt on beaches
0.08 kt on shoreline 2.01 kt on shoreline
6.5 kt to oceans 11.2 kt to the environment (in NL)
4.42 kt macroplastic 28.42 kt macroplastic
0.60 kt microplastic for all polymers combined 3.98 kt microplastic
for all polymers combined (excluding rubber)
8.227 kt per year 3.4 kt per year
218 kt accumulated since 1988
12.7 mt macroplastic 1.09 mt macroplastics
0.35 mt microplastic 0.03 mt microplastic in 2017
1.75 mt (Average of 0.8–2.7 mt) 0.92 mt from surface waters to ocean.
21 mt (Average of 19–23 mt) in 2030 16.1
mt ‘new’ plastics to aquatic compartments
in 2030
8.75 mt (Average of 4.8–12.7 mt) 1.8 mt ‘new’ plastics to ocean in 2015
A.E. Schwarz et al.
Lobelle et al., 2022, the current study predicts significantly higher quanti-
ties on shoreline and beaches in 2020. This means that either fewer plastics
end up on river shorelines than predicted by the ADM, or additional trans-
portation methods are in place that transport plastics from these environ-
mental compartments elsewhere. The ADM model predicts accumulation
of plastics in these compartments, and except for degradation, no
removal processes for plastics are included. The observational data
highlights these transport processes, including burial in sediments,
cleanup, re-introduction in waterways and sinking. Floods can have a
significant impact on plastics on shorelines, and should be mapped
properly per country to assess the mechanism of floods on plastic trans-
port (Roebroek et al., 2021). Furthermore, influx from Germany and
Belgium is not taken into account in the ADM, which means that plastic
mass along shorelines should be higher in observational data than pre-
dicted. Through item identification, it was observed that along Dutch
rivers, a significant quantity (>55 %) of large fragments which could
not be related to consumer packaging are identified (Van Emmerik
et al., 2020). This might indicate an underestimation from industrial
plastics in the model as the ADM predicts >95 % contribution of the
packaging sector.
Navarre et al., 2022 assessed the plastic emissions from Dutch consumer
packaging waste, which is about 40 % of plastics used in the Netherlands
(Navarre et al., 2022). However, export of plastic waste is included in this
study, where waste is processed in different countries with different (mostly
poorer) waste management systems. Mapping export of waste results in
lower emissions of packaging to the oceanic environments compared to
the full environment in the current study (Navarre et al., 2022). The
study of Navarre et al., 2022 lacks detail in emission to different envi-
ronmental compartment, and assumes 25 % of mismanaged waste to
ocean, similar to Jambeck et al., 2015. More recent studies have
shown that transfers of plastic from land to ocean are significantly
lower (Kaandorp et al., 2020; Kawecki and Nowack, 2019; Meijer
et al., 2021; Onink et al., 2021). This precision of environmental
compartment in line with state of the art research is included more accu-
rately in the ADM. As a result, lower emissions to oceanic compartments
and higher transfers to soil and freshwater aquatic compartments are
observed. Borelle et al., 2020 included plastic emissions to all aquatic
environments and has an estimate higher compared to the ADM. In
the current study, it is assumed that 70 % of mismanaged and uncol-
lected waste are burned through open burning, which results in lower
emissions to the environment. An alternative explanation is that poten-
tially, plastics beach and sink quicker than previously assumed and this
environmental transport is often not addressed in (yearly) emission
studies. This is in line with studies that assess significant removal of
floating ocean plastics towards beaches, shoreline and sediments
(Kaandorp et al., 2020; Koelmans et al., 2017; Onink et al., 2021).
Interestingly, almost all studies summarized in Table 4 focus on aquatic
environments. Soil ecosystems and impacts on terrestrial ecosystems of
both micro and macroplastics have been studied significantly less com-
pared to both marine and riverine plastic pollution. According to the results
of the ADM, most micro and macroplastic pollution will be observed in soil
and terrestrial compartments. Studies that have addressed terrestrial plastic
pollution also show high levels of microplastics in residential soil, agricul-
tural soil and negative effects on soil communities (Cohen et al., 2021;
Rehm et al., 2021; Rillig and Bonkowski, 2018; Tian et al., 2022). This
study highlights the importance of including plastic pollution on land and
effects to soil communities and terrestrial ecosystems.
To summarize, most studies that use a modeling approach to plastic pol-
lution exclude variations in environmental compartment and the sensitivity
of transport of plastics in the environment. This results in variations among
studies in plastic emission estimates to different environments. Often, oce-
anic plastic pollution is overestimated, while terrestrial plastic pollution is
overlooked. Furthermore, the effects of transport and degradation of plas-
tics are often not addressed. In this study, a modeling approach is presented
that includes plastic emissions to the environment, degradation and trans-
port. The results of this model present the importance of a shift in
11
Science of the Total Environment 875 (2023) 162644
perspective of plastic pollution and impacts from ocean to freshwater and
terrestrial environments.
4.2. Uncertainties and limitations of the model outcomes
In this study, a yearly MFA modeling approach was used to model plas-
tic emissions to the environment, with an additional transport and accumu-
lation model, the ADM. However, often few data points on emissions of
plastics to the environment are available. With that, these values often
occur with high uncertainties and large spreads, both temporal and spa-
tial. Due to the lack of data points, the spread and uncertainty on a
global level are not included in this study. Therefore, the values pre-
sented in this study do not include uncertainty estimates, as uncertainty
results often in over 50 % more or less as shown in other studies
(Kawecki and Nowack, 2019; Ryberg et al., 2019). The results therefore
lack uncertainty assessments and should not be treated as facts but as an
average approximation based on probabilities, to show contribution of
different compartments and accumulation zones. Before this can
occur, more observational and measurement studies on plastic emis-
sions, transport, degradation and accumulation are required for more
accurate model estimates and validation.
With that, some of the key transfers of plastic pollution have very lim-
ited data points in terms of emission to the environment. Several model
flows with highest uncertainty and missing data are highlighted. One of
these is the uncertainty around the end of life of more industrial sectors. In-
dustrial waste from agriculture, construction, automotive and EEE are more
likely to be collected separate from municipal waste. However, accurate
waste treatment options are often unclear for these sectors. This lack of
data skews the results significantly to municipal waste, and as a results,
the blame and responsibility of plastic pollution is pushed towards con-
sumers and governments, while industrial sectors may play a more signifi-
cant role than predicted. Additionally, fate of uncollected waste and
emissions from (un) controlled landfills to the environments are poorly
studied but expected to be significant, especially from open dump locations.
In the ADM, values used are assumptions based on expert guesses and as-
sumptions done in literature. Furthermore, flows are limited to 8 polymers
and few sectors and the MFA and ADM exclude accuracy on polymer types,
aquaculture sources, marine coatings, paint and road abrasion. Accurate
data on polymer use, and sectors will improve and likely increase emission
estimates. Environmental transport of plastics, including fate, degradation,
sinking and more, are simplified and not country specific. Accuracy can be
improved per country depending on natural data, climate and available en-
vironmental compartments are to be included. The last and likely most sig-
nificant flows that are not included in the model are import and export
plastic products and waste. As shown in Navarre et al., 2022 and when com-
pared to results from Kawecki and Nowack, 2019, export of plastic waste
can have significant impact on the plastic emission estimates for a country.
Consumption data of a country does not equal the production data, and the
highly globalized plastic market results in a difficult mapping of plastic
emissions from the system and allocation to a specific country. In the
current study, consumption data from the OECD, 2021 are used. However,
a lot of plastic products produced in China but are exported, and these plas-
tics might be assessed as ‘consumption’ and hence the emission of the plas-
tic might not take place here although the model predicts so. This is a result
of improper definition of ‘consumption’ versus ‘production’, and unclear
import and export data for plastic, both raw materials, products and
waste. It is likely HIC countries have a higher contribution to plastic emis-
sions to the environment than predicted in the current study, and these
emissions most likely occur in LMC and LIC countries (Navarre et al., 2022).
About the size of plastics, the model differentiates in size of plastics be-
tween micro (<5 mm) and macroplastic (>5 mm). The size of microplastic
particles after degradation is key for various processes, including dispersion
in water and air, and risk assessment for biota and human health. The size
and shape of microplastic formation through degradation varies strongly
per polymer and product type, and therefore the degradation patterns
vary as well. Adding these dimensions such as the size classes and polymer
A.E. Schwarz et al.
properties on degradation will improve the model significantly, especially
for the degradation and environmental fate modeling, as also mass, density
and buoyancy are affected (Waldschläger and Schüttrumpf, 2019). A link
can be made to removal processes of microplastics, such as subsurface
and sediment accumulation, nanoparticle formation and mineralization.
Due to uncertainty, mineralization and decay are excluded from the assess-
ment, but for more realistic results, these should be included in the assess-
ment. In conclusion, it should be noted that the model cannot give accurate
predictions on total emissions per year at a local or regional level. However,
the model is very capable of identifying main sources of plastic pollution,
accumulation areas in the environment and hence can give insight in
most effective mitigation strategies.
4.3. Future outlook
4.3.1. Mitigation strategies for plastic emissions
The three scenarios sketch the effect of reducing plastic consumption on
plastic emissions to the environment. From the results, significant plastic
pollution can be avoided through limiting the plastic production, showing
a decrease of 30 % micro and macroplastic emissions in the reduction sce-
nario compared to the Business as usual scenario. This results highlights
that with a significant growth of plastic production, effects of mitigation
measures will likely be limited. This was also highlighted by Borelle
et al., 2020 showing that a growth scenario for plastic products will be
the most important factor in plastic pollution quantities (Borelle et al.,
2020). Limiting plastic production can include but is not limited to a
focus on circular plastics through rethinking products to multi-use, better
recycling, re-use and refurbishment. Additionally, also other potential mit-
igation strategies that affect parts of the life cycle of plastic products can be
assessed on effectiveness using probabilities in the MFA and ADM. This can
include the single use plastic ban, cleanups, material and design choices, fil-
ters in water and improved waste management systems. To address these
mitigations, the sectors or products that are affected need to be mapped,
in combination with (yearly) effectivity and year of installation, which
can expand over a specific timeframe. The ADM can assess effective and
less effective mitigation strategies for plastic reduction in the environment
can already be identified through tackling the most significant plastic loss
pathways. These include improving waste collection, addressing emissions
from open dumps, reducing tyre emissions and air filters to reduce exposure
to human tissue. The zero emission scenario assessed highlights the impor-
tance of cleanups, as the legacy of littered (macro) plastics is significant. Im-
portance of effective cleanups on terrestrial and freshwater environments is
highlighted here. Additionally, cleanups are easiest when executed on these
environments. Once in freshwater and ocean sediments, or once degraded
to microplastics, cleanup efforts will become more difficult, expensive
and less efficient. In combination with costs, cost curves can be used
to assess mitigation costs against its effectiveness.
4.3.2. Applicability in risk assessments or concentration studies
The ADM estimates that in all scenarios, significant quantities of plastic
will find its way to the environment by 2050, exposing not only humans but
also other organisms to microplastics. Exposure can result in health implica-
tions and ecosystem impacts. Toxicity data such as used in REACH or ECHA
rely on concentration data, including lethal dose and effect dose. These
values are additionally used in life cycle impact studies through the UseTOX
software (Fantke et al., 2017). The results of the MFA and ADM are mass
based, aggregated to country level and environmental compartment. The
model distinguished polymer type, which is relevant for risk assessment,
but still lacks sensitivity on shape and size of microplastics, which are
also important parameters (Jacques and Prosser, 2021). Therefore, several
additional steps are required for concentration assessments for risk as-
sessment utilization. Translation steps towards plastic emissions based
on a grid level have to be developed to obtain concentration data for
risk assessments. Potentially, available data on environmental compart-
ment area (m2) per country can be used to improve these statistically.
However, as this study focuses on a global outlook, concentrations of
12
Science of the Total Environment 875 (2023) 162644
microplastics on a local level can vary strongly. This depends also on
local population and habits, environment characteristics, and economic
activity. Hence, if precise regional risk assessments are desired, more lo-
calized monitoring data and studies are required. For oceanic environ-
ments, a risk assessment for microplastics was executed (Everaert
et al., 2020). From this study, a minimal area is at risk, 0.52–1.62 % in
2050 under business as usual. However, as this study shows, oceanic
environments are the environmental compartment with lowest total
microplastic quantities, as opposed to freshwater and terrestrial ecosys-
tems which coincidentally also cover a smaller surface area on the
globe. For soil environments, risk assessments have shown considerable
risk (Jacques and Prosser, 2021). With increasing plastic pollution in es-
pecially soil environments, environmental risks will likely increase.
Hence, the ADM model can provide data input to support environment
based risk assessment studies in the future.
5. Conclusions
In this study, a yearly MFA was used to estimate direct plastic emissions
to the environment from the value chain. Based on the yearly MFA,
the ADM was developed including plastic accumulation, degradation,
transport and dispersion in the environment until 2050. Globally, 0.8 mt
of microplastics and 8.7 mt of macroplastics entered the environment in
2017. Packaging was the main contributing sector for macroplastics, and
tyre wear for microplastics. Most macro and microplastics end up along
roadsides, natural and residential soils. Depending on the scenario chosen,
micro and macroplastics accumulate in the environment to respectively
2.2 Gt and 3.1 Gt (BAU) and 1.5 and 2.3 Gt (reduce) in 2050. With zero
plastic production after 2022, 0.8 and 1.3 Gt macro and microplastics re-
spectively accumulated in the environment in 2050. Significant growth of
the plastic production sector will heavily contribute to the total quantities
of plastic lost to the environment. Reduction of plastic production until
2050 will limit plastic pollution by >30 %. However, even with a strict
zero plastic production scenario, over 2.15 Gt of plastics will accumulate
in the environment, potentially posing risks to human and ecosystem
health. Most micro and macro plastics will accumulate in natural soils,
subsurface soils, freshwater and ocean sediments. Most studies that
use a modeling approach to estimate plastic emissions to the environ-
ment, the plastic accumulation, degradation and transport on a global
level are not addressed. This study presents a first outlook on plastic
accumulation and transport in the environment, which can be used to
assess risks of plastic emissions to the environment, both over time
and in space addressing different environmental compartment.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
A.E. Schwarz: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis,
Data curation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review
& editing. S.M.C. Lensen: Methodology, Formal analysis, Software,
Writing – review & editing. E. Langeveld: Conceptualization, Investiga-
tion, Writing – review & editing. L.A. Parker: Data curation, Investiga-
tion, Writing – review & editing. J.H. Urbanus: Conceptualization,
Investigation, Writing – review & editing.
Data availability
Data is attached as 2 supplementary files (CSV)
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relation-
ships which may be considered as potential competing interests:
Anna Schwarz reports financial support was provided by TNO Circular
economy and environment. Anna Schwarz reports a relationship with
TNO Circular economy and environment that includes: employment, speak-
ing and lecture fees, and travel reimbursement.
A.E. Schwarz et al.
Acknowledgement
This research was funded by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and
Climate Policy of the Netherlands in the demand-driven program Circu-
lar Economy.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162644.
References
Amadei, A.M., Sanyé-Mengual, E., Sala, S., 2022. Modeling the EU plastic footprint: exploring
data sources and littering potential. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 178, 106086. https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2021.106086.
Amaral-Zettler, L.A., Zettler, E.R., Mincer, T.J., Klaassen, M.A., Gallager, S.M., 2021. Biofoul-
ing impacts on polyethylene density and sinking in coastal waters: a macro/micro tipping
point? Water Res. 201, 117289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2021.117289.
Baensch-Baltruschat, B., Kocher, B., Kochleus, C., Stock, F., Reifferscheid, G., 2021. Tyre and
road wear particles - a calculation of generation, transport and release to water and soil
with special regard to German roads. Sci. Total Environ. 752, 141939. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2020.141939.
Bai, M., Li, D., 2020. Quantity of plastic waste input into the ocean from China based on a ma-
terial flow analysis model1. Anthr. Coasts https://doi.org/10.1139/anc-2018-0028.
Bergmann, M., Collard, F., Fabres, J., Gabrielsen, G.W., Provencher, J.F., Rochman, C.M., van
Sebille, E., Tekman, M.B., 2022. Plastic pollution in the Arctic. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 3,
323–337. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-022-00279-8 2022 35.
Borrelle, S.B., Ringma, J., Lavender Law, K., Monnahan, C.C., Lebreton, L., McGivern, A.,
Murphy, E., Jambeck, J., Leonard, G.H., Hilleary, M.A., Eriksen, M., Possingham, H.P.,
De Frond, H., Gerber, L.R., Polidoro, B., Tahir, A., Bernard, M., Mallos, N., Barnes, M.,
Rochman, C.M., 2020. Predicted growth in plastic waste exceeds efforts to mitigate plas-
tic pollution. Science 369, 1515–1518. https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIENCE.ABA3656.
Boucher, J., Billard, G., Simeone, E., Sousa, J., 2020. The marine plastic footprint. The Marine
Plastic Footprint https://doi.org/10.2305/iucn.ch.2020.01.en.
Candido, G.M., Santolia, F., De Melo, M.R.F., Dos Santos, G.A.B., 2006. Methodology of plastic
parts development in the automotive industry. SAE Tech. Pap https://doi.org/10.4271/
2006-01-2626.
Chamas, A., Moon, H., Zheng, J., Qiu, Y., Tabassum, T., Jang, J.H., Abu-Omar, M., Scott, S.L.,
Suh, S., 2020. Degradation rates of plastics in the environment. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng.
8, 3494–3511. https://doi.org/10.1021/ACSSUSCHEMENG.9B06635/ASSET/IMAGES/
LARGE/SC9B06635_0009.JPEG.
Cohen, Q.M., Glaese, M., Meng, K., Geissen, V., Huerta-Lwanga, E., 2021. Parks and recrea-
tional areas as sinks of plastic debris in urban sites: the case of light-density microplastics
in the City of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Environments 9, 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ENVIRONMENTS9010005 2022, Vol. 9, Page 5.
De La Fuente, R., Drótos, G., Hernández-García, E., López, C., Van Sebille, E., 2021. Sinking
microplastics in the water column: simulations in the Mediterranean Sea. Ocean Sci.
17, 431–453. https://doi.org/10.5194/os-17-431-2021.
Derraik, J.G., 2002. The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 44, 842–852. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-326X(02)00220-5.
Deshpande, P.C., Philis, G., Brattebø, H., Fet, A.M., 2020. Using material flow analysis
(MFA) to generate the evidence on plastic waste management from commercial fish-
ing gears in Norway. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. X 5, 100024. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.rcrx.2019.100024.
Du, H., Xie, Y., Wang, J., 2021. Microplastic degradation methods and corresponding degra-
dation mechanism: research status and future perspectives. J. Hazard. Mater. 418,
126377. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JHAZMAT.2021.126377.
van Emmerik, T., Kieu-Le, T.-C., Loozen, M., Oeveren, K., Strady, E., Bui, X.-T., Egger, M.,
Gasperi, J., Lebreton, L., Nguyen, P.-D., Schwarz, A., Slat, B., Tassin, B., 2018. A method-
ology to characterize riverine macroplastic emission into the ocean. Front. Mar. Sci. 5.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00372.
van Emmerik, T., Mellink, Y., Hauk, R., Waldschläger, K., Schreyers, L., 2022. Rivers as plastic
reservoirs. Front. Water 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2021.786936.
Espi, E., Salmeron, A., A.F.-J. of P., 2006. . undefined, 2006Plastic Films for Agricultural
Applications. 22, pp. 85–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756087906064220
journals.sagepub.com.
EU, 2021. EU single plastic ban [WWW Document]. 2021. URL https://environment.ec.
europa.eu/topics/plastics/single-use-plastics/eu-restrictions-certain-single-use-
plastics_en#:~:text=From_3_July_2021%2C_single,made_of_oxo-degradable_plastic
(accessed 12.12.22).
EUROMAP, 2016. Plastics Resin Production and Consumption in 63 Countries Worldwide
2009-2020, p. 80.
Everaert, G., De Rijcke, M., Lonneville, B., Janssen, C.R., Backhaus, T., Mees, J., van Sebille,
E., Koelmans, A.A., Catarino, A.I., Vandegehuchte, M.B., 2020. Risks of floating
microplastic in the global ocean. Environ. Pollut. 267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2020.115499.
Fantke, P., Bijster, M., Guignard, C., Hauschild, M.Z., Huijbregts, M.A.J., Jolliet, O., Kounina,
A., Magaud, V., Margni, M., McKone, T.E., Posthuma, L., Rosenbaum, R.K., van de Meent,
D., van Zelm, R., 2017. USEtox 2.0 Documentation (Version 1). https://doi.org/10.
11581/DTU:00000011.
13
Science of the Total Environment 875 (2023) 162644
Geyer, R., Jambeck, J.R., Law, K.L., 2017. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made -
Supplementary Information. Sci. Adv., 25–29 https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782.
He, B., Smith, M., Egodawatta, P., Ayoko, G.A., Rintoul, L., Goonetilleke, A., 2021. Dispersal
and transport of microplastics in river sediments. Environ. Pollut. 279, 0–25. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.116884.
Ivar do Sul, J., Costa, M.F., Silva-Cavalcanti, J.S., Barbosa De Araújo, M.C., 2018. Plastic De-
bris Retention and Exportation by a Mangrove Forest Patch. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2013.11.011.
Jacques, O., Prosser, R.S., 2021. A probabilistic risk assessment of microplastics in soil
ecosystems. Sci. Total Environ. 757, 143987. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
SCITOTENV.2020.143987.
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. Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci.
347, 768–771. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260352.
Jan Kole, 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, 1265. https://doi.org/10.3390/IJERPH14101265 2017, Vol. 14, Page 1265.
Kaandorp, M.L.A., Dijkstra, H.A., Van Sebille, E., 2020. Closing the mediterranean marine
floating plastic mass budget: inverse modeling of sources and sinks. Cite This Environ.
Sci. Technol. 54, 11980–11989. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c01984.
Kaiser, D., Kowalski, N., Waniek, J.J., 2017. Effects of biofouling on the sinking behavior of
microplastics. Environ. Res. Lett. 12. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa8e8b.
Kawecki, D., Nowack, B., 2019. Polymer-Specific Modeling of the Environmental Emissions of
Seven Commodity Plastics as Macro-and Microplastics. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.
9b02900.
Kaza, S., Yao, L.C., Bhada-Tata, P., Van Woerden, F., 2018. What a Waste 2.0. What a
Waste 2.0 A Glob. Snapshot Solid Waste Manag. to 2050. https://doi.org/10.
1596/978-1-4648-1329-0.
Koelmans, A.A., Kooi, M., Law, K., Van Sebille, E., 2017. All is not lost: fragmentation of plas-
tic at sea. Environ. Sci. Technol. 12, 114028.
Koelmans, A.A., Quik, J., Meesters, J., Verschoor, A., 2019. Multimedia Modeling of Nano-
and Microplastics in the Environment. 31, p. 6700. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
319-61615-5.Meesters.
Kooi, M., Besseling, E., Kroeze, C., Van Wezel, A.P., Koelmans, A.A., 2018. Modeling the
fate and transport of plastic debris in freshwaters: review and guidance. Handbook
of Environmental Chemistry, pp. 125–152 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
61615-5_7.
Koutnik, V.S., Leonard, J., Alkidim, S., DePrima, F.J., Ravi, S., Hoek, E.M.V., Mohanty, S.K.,
2021a. Distribution of microplastics in soil and freshwater environments: global analysis
and framework for transport modeling. Environ. Pollut. 274. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ENVPOL.2021.116552.
Koutnik, V.S., Leonard, J., Alkidim, S., DePrima, F.J., Ravi, S., Hoek, E.M.V., Mohanty, S.K.,
2021b. Distribution of microplastics in soil and freshwater environments: global analysis
and framework for transport modeling. Environ. Pollut. 274, 116552. https://doi.org/10.
1016/J.ENVPOL.2021.116552.
Lebreton, L., Slat, B., Ferrari, F., Sainte-Rose, B., Aitken, J., Marthouse, R., Hajbane, S.,
Cunsolo, S., Schwarz, A., Levivier, A., Noble, K., Debeljak, P., Maral, H., Schoeneich-
Argent, R., Brambini, R., Reisser, J., 2018. Evidence that the Great Pacific Garbage
Patch is rapidly accumulating plastic. Sci. Rep. 8, 4666. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41598-018-22939-w.
Lechner, A., Keckeis, H., Lumesberger-Loisl, F., Zens, B., Krusch, R., Tritthart, M., Glas, M.,
Schludermann, E., 2014. The Danube so colourful: a potpourri of plastic litter outnumbers
fish larvae in Europe's second largest river. Environ. Pollut. 188, 177–181. https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.ENVPOL.2014.02.006.
Leslie, H.A., van Velzen, M.J.M., Brandsma, S.H., Vethaak, A.D., Garcia-Vallejo, J.J., Lamoree,
M.H., 2022. Discovery and quantification of plastic particle pollution in human blood. En-
viron. Int. 163, 107199. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVINT.2022.107199.
Liro, M., van Emmerik, T., Wyzga, B., Liro, J., Mikuś, P., 2020. Macroplastic storage and remo-
bilization in rivers. Water (Switzerland) 12, 22–29. https://doi.org/10.3390/
w12072055.
Lobelle, D., Shen, L., van Huet, B., van Emmerik, T., Kaandorp, M., Iattoni, G., Baldé, K., Law,
K.L., van Sebille, E., 2022. Knowns and unknowns of plastic waste flows in the
Netherlands. SSRN Electron. J. https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.4050390.
Luan, X., Kou, X., Zhang, L., Chen, L., Liu, W., Cui, Z., 2022. Estimation and prediction of plas-
tic losses to the environment in China from 1950 to 2050. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 184,
106386. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2022.106386.
Martin, J., Lusher, A., Thompson, R.C., Morley, A., 2017. The deposition and accumulation of
microplastics in marine sediments and bottom water from the Irish continental shelf. Sci.
Rep. 7, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-11079-2.
Meijer, L.J.J., van Emmerik, T., van der Ent, R., Schmidt, C., Lebreton, L., 2021. More than
1000 rivers account for 80% of global riverine plastic emissions into the ocean. Sci.
Adv. 7. https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIADV.AAZ5803/SUPPL_FILE/AAZ5803_SM.PDF.
Mellink, Y., van Emmerik, T., Kooi, M., Laufkötter, C., Niemann, H., 2022. The plastic path-
finder: a macroplastic transport and fate model for terrestrial environments. Front. Envi-
ron. Sci. 10, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.979685.
Napper, I.E., Davies, B.F.R., Clifford, H., Elvin, S., Koldewey, H.J., Mayewski, P.A., Miner,
K.R., Potocki, M., Elmore, A.C., Gajurel, A.P., Thompson, R.C., 2020. Reaching new
heights in plastic pollution—preliminary findings of microplastics on Mount Everest.
One Earth 3, 621–630. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ONEEAR.2020.10.020.
Navarre, N., Mogollón, J.M., Tukker, A., Barbarossa, V., 2022. Recycled plastic packaging
from the Dutch food sector pollutes Asian oceans. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 185,
106508. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2022.106508.
Nizzetto, L., Bussi, G., Futter, M.N., Butterfield, D., Whitehead, P.G., 2016. A theoretical
assessment 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.
A.E. Schwarz et al.
OECD, 2022. Global Plastics Outlook. Glob. Plast. Outlook. https://doi.org/10.1787/
aa1edf33-en.
Onink, V., Jongedijk, C.E., Hoffman, M.J., van Sebille, E., Laufkötter, C., 2021. LETTER •
OPEN ACCESS Global simulations of marine plastic transport show plastic trapping
in coastal zones global simulations of marine plastic transport show plastic trapping
in coastal zones. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 64053. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-
9326/abecbd.
Peano, L., 2020. Pleastic Leak Project, Methodological Guidelines. Quantis and EA.
PlasticsEurope, 2018. Plastics-The Facts 2018 An Analysis of European Plastics Production,
Demand and Waste Data.
PlasticsEurope, 2019. Plastics, the Facts.
Ragusa, A., Notarstefano, V., Svelato, A., Belloni, A., Gioacchini, G., Blondeel, C., Zucchelli, E.,
De Luca, C., D’avino, S., Gulotta, A., Carnevali, O., Giorgini, E., 2022. Raman
microspectroscopy detection and characterisation of microplastics in human breastmilk.
Polymers (Basel) 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/POLYM14132700.
Rangel-Buitrago, N., Mendoza, A.V., Mantilla-Barbosa, E., Arroyo-Olarte, H., Arana, V.A.,
Trilleras, J., Gracia, C.A., Neal, W.J., Williams, A.T., 2021. Plastic pollution on the
Colombian central Caribbean beaches. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 162, 111837. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111837.
Rehm, R., Zeyer, T., Schmidt, A., Fiener, P., 2021. Soil erosion as transport pathway of
microplastic from agriculture soils to aquatic ecosystems. Sci. Total Environ. 795,
148774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148774.
Rillig, M.C., Bonkowski, M., 2018. Microplastic and soil protists: a call for research. Environ.
Pollut. 241, 1128–1131. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVPOL.2018.04.147.
Roebroek, C.T.J., Harrigan, S., Van Emmerik, T.H.M., Baugh, C., Eilander, D., Prudhomme, C.,
Pappenberger, F., 2021. Plastic in global rivers: are floods making it worse? Environ. Res.
Lett. 16. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abd5df.
Royer, S.-J., Ferrón, S., Wilson, S.T., Karl, D.M., 2018. Production of methane and ethylene
from plastic in the environment. PLoS One 13, e0200574. https://doi.org/10.1371/jour-
nal.pone.0200574.
Ryberg, M.W., Hauschild, M.Z., Wang, F., Averous-Monnery, S., Laurent, A., 2019. Global en-
vironmental losses of plastics across their value chains. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 151,
104459. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2019.104459.
14
Science of the Total Environment 875 (2023) 162644
Schreyers, L., van Emmerik, T., Nguyen, T.L., Castrop, E., Phung, N.A., Kieu-Le, T.C.,
Strady, E., Biermann, L., van der Ploeg, M., 2021. Plastic plants: the role of water hy-
acinths in plastic transport in tropical rivers. Front. Environ. Sci. 9, 1–9. https://doi.
org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.686334.
Schwarz, A., van Emmerik, T., 2022. Deconstructing the plastic soup. Plast. Ocean,
77–98 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119768432.ch3.
Schwarz, A.E., Ligthart, T.N., Boukris, E., van Harmelen, T., 2019. Sources, transport, and ac-
cumulation of different types of plastic litter in aquatic environments: a review study.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 143, 92–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.04.029.
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. https://doi.org/10.
1088/1748-9326/10/12/124006.
Sieber, R., Kawecki, D., Nowack, B., 2020. Dynamic probabilistic material flow analysis of
rubber release from tires into the environment. Environ. Pollut. 258, 113573. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113573.
Tian, L., Jinjin, C., Ji, R., Ma, Y., Yu, X., 2022. Microplastics in agricultural soils: sources,
effects, and their fate. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 25, 100311. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.COESH.2021.100311.
Tramoy, R., Gasperi, J., Dris, R., Colasse, L., Fisson, C., Sananes, S., Rocher, V., Tassin, B.,
2019. Assessment of the plastic inputs from the Seine basin to the sea using statistical
and field approaches. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 151. https://doi.org/10.3389/FMARS.2019.
00151/BIBTEX.
Van Emmerik, T., Schwarz, A., 2019. Plastic Debris in Rivers. https://doi.org/10.1002/
wat2.1398.
Van Emmerik, T., Roebroek, C., De Winter, W., Vriend, P., Boonstra, M., Hougee, M., 2020.
Riverbank macrolitter in the Dutch Rhine-Meuse delta. Environ. Res. Lett. 15. https://
doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abb2c6.
Waldschläger, K., Schüttrumpf, H., 2019. Effects of particle properties on the settling and rise
velocities of microplastics in freshwater under laboratory conditions. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 53, 1958–1966.