Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management 16 (2021) 100530

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management

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

Microplastics pollution: A comprehensive review on the sources, fates,

effects, and potential remediation
Amit Hasan Anik a, Shabiha Hossain a, Mahbub Alam a, *, Maisha Binte Sultan a,
MD. Tanvir Hasnine b, Md. Mostafizur Rahman c, *
a
Department of Environmental Science, Bangladesh University of Professionals (BUP), Dhaka 1216, Bangladesh
b
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 5V6, Canada
c
Department of Environmental Sciences, Jahangirnagar University, Dhaka 1342, Bangladesh

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

Keywords: Microplastics (MPs) are omnipresent and enter into the environment due to the indiscriminate usage in various
Microplastics industrial productions like cleaning and cosmetics products, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, and through the
Emerging contaminants weathering of large plastic relics. Moreover, MPs have the potential of biomagnification along with the food
Effects
chain via ingestion, inhalation, and translocation and may also transfer into the human body. It is reported that
Environment
MPs can accommodate several contaminants onto their surface due to the high adsorption potentiality. Thus,
Human health
Removal approaches MPs have received tremendous research interest. However, previous studies put little emphasis on the distri­
butions and fates of MPs in the aquatic ecosystems more specifically in the marine environment. Thereby, a
critical review was conducted aiming to comprehend and scrutinize the possible sources of MPs with their proven
effects in the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems as well as the probable ramifications in human health. Besides,
this review summarizes the existing identifications and removal approaches of MPs with their advantages and
drawbacks and more precisely pointed out several crucial knowledge gaps on which researchers should focus to
promote the MPs research in the future. However, researchers stated MPs as an emerging threat to our envi­
ronment as it is widespread, highly persistent, non-degradable, and toxic. Therefore, this work has suggested that
to commence the monitoring and clean-up approaches for the existing plastic fragments, removal actions and
remedial measures should take simultaneously.

1. Introduction microplastics (MPs) (Anderson et al., 2016; Gajendiran et al., 2016).

Plastic pollution is a global concern in today’s world. In almost
everywhere large fragments of plastic have been seen even from the
most popular beaches to remote lonesome islands (Bucci and Rochman
2020). According to the report of Plastics Europe (2018), worldwide
production of plastics has been expanded exponentially which nearly
arrived at 350 million tons in 2017. Therefore, scientists have already
warned us that if the rapid increases of plastics continuing then the
number of plastics will outnumber the fish in the sea by 2050 (Mac­
Arthur, 2016; Geyer et al., 2017). However, plastics found in the envi­
ronment can be categorized into five classes based on their size like
nanoplastics (<1 μm), microplastics (≥1 μm to < 5 mm), mesoplastics
(≥5 mm to 5 cm), macroplastics (>5 to 50 cm), and megaplastics (>50
cm) (Lebreton et al., 2018; Gigault et al., 2018). Moreover, large plastic
wreckages are an antecedent worldwide issue comparing to
MPs can be defined as the smaller fragments (<5 mm) of synthetic
plastic polymers which are highly persistent and ubiquitous in all the
environmental media (GESAMP, 2015; NOAA, 2018; Karim et al., 2019).
Nevertheless, the formal definition of MPs has been toted a controversy
regarding its size where only the upper boundary has mentioned.
Therefore, the size is fixed between 100 nm and 5 mm for solid synthetic
organic polymer particles (Duis and Coors 2016). Howsoever, most
general forms of MPs that are found in the environment classified as
granules, fibers, fragments, and pellets which predominantly contain
various types of synthetic polymers (Karim et al., 2019; Ryan et al.,
2009). However, plastic fragments are comparatively lighter which can
be transported by winds and currents and even may recirculate between
the beach sediments and seawater. Albeit, the density of the polymer
particles is a prime definitive factor that may affect the circulation of
MPs (Eubeler et al. 2010).

* Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: mahbub.alam@bup.edu.bd (M. Alam), rahmanmm@juniv.edu (Md.M. Rahman).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enmm.2021.100530
Received 5 April 2021; Received in revised form 15 June 2021; Accepted 6 July 2021
Available online 9 July 2021
2215-1532/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
A. Hasan Anik et al. Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management 16 (2021) 100530

Table 1
Global distribution of MPs in the aquatic environment.
Location Habitat Sample type Study findings Detection method References

Western Lake Superior, Canada Freshwater Water Estuary/harbor concentrations: Microscopy, FTIR (Hendrickson
21,000–110,000 particles km− 2 Pyr-GC/MS, et al. 2018)
Great Lakes tributaries, USA Freshwater Water 0.00005–0.032 particles L − 1 Visual identification (Baldwin et al.
Dominant MPs type: Fibres/lines (71%) and using dissecting 2016)
fragments (17%). Microscope
North Yellow Sea, China Marine Surface Surface seawater: 545 ± 282 items/m3 FTIR (Zhu et al. 2018)
seawater and Sediments: 37.1 ± 42.7 items/kg dry weight
sediments Dominant MPs type: Films and fibres
Goa beaches (Keri, Vagator, Marine Beach Total of 3000 pellets from six beaches Stereoscope (Veerasingam
Calangute, Colva, Mobor and Dominant polymer type: Polyethylene and microscope, FTIR-ATR et al., 2016a,
Galigibag), India Polypropylene Common surface properties: 2016b)
white colour, yellow colour,
virgin surface adhesion (with tar balls,
animal and plant residues), loss of material,
erosion, cracked surface, glazed surface and
change in colour
Singapore Marine Mangrove 36.8 items/kg dry weight FTIR-ATR (Nor and Obbard
Dominant MPs type: Fibrous (<20 µm) 2014)
Dominant polymer type: polyethylene,
polypropylene, nylon and polyvinyl
chloride
Gulf of Thailand, Japan Marine Surface Thailand: 100 pieces/kg-dry sediment. FTIR-ATR (Matsuguma et al.
sediment Japan: 1900 pieces/kg-dry sediment. 2017)
Dominant MPs type: Fragments (75%),
fibres (15%) and beads (4%).
European beach sediment (23 Marine Beach Average MPs concentration: 72 ± 24 to Stereo-microscope, (Lots et al. 2017)
locations across 13 countries sediment 1512 ± 187 per kg of dry sediment. Raman spectrometry
covering Mediterranean, Atlantic Dominant MPs types: Fibrous, < 1 mm in
and Baltic seas) size, and blue/black in colour.
Polymer type: Polyester, Polyethylene, and
Polypropylene.
Australia Elwick Bay and Sediment MPs abundance: 2.43–4.2 plastic fragments Stereomicroscope (Willis et al.
Dogshear Point in the per gram of sediment. 2017)
Derwent Estuary, Dominant MPs type: Fibres (87%), sheet
Tasmania, Australia (9%), fragment (3%), and beads (1%).
India Bay of Bengal Surface water Concentration Few hundreds to 20,000 Stereomicroscope (Eriksen et al.,
2014)

Furthermore, it has been noticed that in the last few years the con­
sequences of MPs are comparatively further intricate than those of large
plastics which causes increasing environmental concern about these tiny
particles (Prasath and Poon 2018). Moreover, due to the outbreak of
Covid-19, a huge number of single-use protective gears such as face­
masks, hand gloves, goggles are added as single-use plastic waste into
our environment around the world which created a situation like rub­
bing salt into the wound (WEF 2020). Most of these plastics debris has
been broken down due to weathering and converted into minute parti­
cles which are generally termed as microplastics or nanoplastics (Gigault
et al. 2018). These plastic relics may take about 50 up to 600 years or
even more for their break down process though the duration may vary
due to the polymer composition and the environmental circumstance
(Dris et al. 2016). However, not only the breakdown of macroplastics
but also the disposal of consumer products, industrial wastes are also
responsible for the generation of MPs which are found in every envi­
ronmental compartment and also even in the tap water (Biginagwa
et al., 2016; Blumenröder et al., 2017; Dümichen et al., 2017). Ac­
cording to WHO (2019), they have found the subsistence of MPs in
treated tap and bottled water though at a low level due to regular
consumption, it may cause a chronic effect on human health.
Apart from that MPs are being entangled and ingested by a large
extent of aquatic and terrestrial fauna like zooplankton, crustaceans,
birds, fishes, turtles, and mammals (Free et al., 2014; Naidoo et al.,
2020; Hara et al., 2020). Besides, MPs may adsorb several toxic mate­
rials such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH), heavy metals, and
pathogens which may cause deleterious impacts on the aquatic species
that result in oxidative stress and ebb of nutrient uptake (Yang et al.,
2014; Sutton et al., 2016). MPs also cause severe impacts on aquatic
species, including asphyxiation, starvation, injuries due to abrasion, and
restriction to movement (Alimba and Faggio 2019). Besides, it may pose
a serious threat at the tissue and cellular level and also intervened in
energy reallocation, successive reproduction, and sibling execution
(Karlsson et al., 2017; Leslie et al., 2017).
Yu Q. et al. mentioned that 1,390 articles have been published in
different journals from 2004 to 2018 containing ‘Micro-plastics’ as a
keyword in the title (Yu et al. 2020). Furthermore, Ajith et al. have been
found 402 articles from 2010 to 2019. Thereafter, they have been
selected 220 articles according to their research objectives and pointed
out that 47% of those articles focused on the impacts of MPs (organ­
isms), 41% on the distribution (allocation of MPs in the diverse envi­
ronmental compartment), and the remaining 12% on the review
(unrecognized area of MPs) (Ajith et al. 2020). Hence, it is under­
standable that the researchers give huge attention regarding this issue
more specifically their ramification, methodologies of sampling, anal­
ysis techniques, global allocations, fates, and ambivalent effects on the
environment are becoming an emerging field of scientific research (de
Souza Machado et al., 2018; Ivar Do Sul and Costa, 2014; Law and
Oceans, 2014). Nevertheless, there is still some research gaps including
(i) lack of knowledge regarding fate and transport of MPs; (ii) no stan­
dard method for the identification and characterization of MPs in
various environmental media; (iii) atmospheric MPs (indoor and out­
door air); (iv) lack of research on MPs in the soil; and (v) relation be­
tween MPs and climate change-related research is required (Reimonn
et al., 2019; Yu et al., 2020; Mbachu et al., 2020; Sarker et al., 2020;
Zhang et al., 2019; Shen et al., 2019). Consequently, this review focuses
on the fate and transportation of MPs along with the effects on the
aquatic and terrestrial environment as well as on human health. Besides,
this work also demonstrates several identifications and removal ap­
proaches of MPs from the various environmental compartments and

2
A. Hasan Anik et al. Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management 16 (2021) 100530

Fig. 1. Global evaluation of sources of primary MPs in the oceans (European Commission, 2017).

discuss the above-mentioned research gaps that provide a direction and

Table 2
guideline for the researcher.
Proven origins of primary and secondary MPs.
Primary MPs
2. Global distribution of microplastics
• Synthetic textiles release shreds of
Microplastics (MPs) are commonly allocated in all the compartments fiber (Duis and Coors 2016).
• Abrasion from car tires (Duis and
of the environment such as freshwaters, estuaries, oceans, coastlines,
Coors 2016).
sediments, beaches, and soils (Gallagher et al., 2016; Sarker et al.,
2020). However, MP’s affluence and distribution are preeminently
dependent on environmental and anthropogenic factors. • Ingredients of manufacturing plastic
products (pre-production plastics)
Here, Table 1 summarizes the allocations of MPs in the aquatic
(Duis and Coors 2016).
habitat globally. MPs are also allocated in the terrestrial environment to
a large extent like the aquatic environment (Cole et al., 2011; Wong • Residues from plastic processing
et al., 2020). Zhang and Liu reported that, they have found MPs in the factories and granulate produced
abundance of 0.54 mg/kg in agricultural land which is at Loess Plateau during plastic recycling (Andrady,
2011; Moore, 2008).
in China (Zhang and Liu 2018). In another study, Fuller and Gautam
• Cleaning and personal care products
pointed out that they observed 67,500 mg/kg of MPs in the soil near an such as cosmetic items, scrubbers, face
industry at Sydney in Australia (Fuller and Gautam 2016). Hereafter, the wash, body wash, shower gels,
study of Tiwari et al. at Mumbai in India found an abundance of 220 toothpaste, etc. (Lassen et al., 2015;
Boucher and Friot, 2017).
items/kg MPs in the beach soil (Tiwari et al. 2019). However, it is un­
• Medical applications, like in dentist
derstandable that the distributions of MPs broadly depended on two tooth polishing, and which bearers to
factors such as environmental factors (wind, currents, tides, and river deliver operative pharmaceutical
hydrodynamics) and anthropogenic factors (human activities). More­ agents (Lassen et al., 2015; Sundt
over, environmental factors play more intensive roles in the distribution et al., 2014).
of MPs than anthropogenic factors (Hamid et al. 2018). MPs are found
everywhere on earth, from the most populous regions like China or India • Outturn of drilling fluids due to the
to the lonesome regions like Antarctica (Ajith et al. 2020). Hence, it can operation of oil and gas exploration
be concluded that anthropogenic deeds like fishery exploits, maritime and in industrial abrasives (Lassen
et al., 2015; Gregory, 1996).
traffic, and tourism are the root causes of MPs pollution, although the
• Hygiene products of various types also
distributions of MPs are mainly discerned by the environmental factors. release fragments of fiber (Duis and
Coors 2016).
3. Types and sources of microplastics in the environment • Artificial grasses (turf) in the football
pitch (Regnell 2019).
Secondary MPs
• Larger plastic materials fragment
(Duis and Coors 2016).
• Unwise dumping strategies of plastic
garbage and inappropriately managed
landfill sites (Barnes et al., 2009; Afrin
et al., 2020).
• Windblown tailings or litters are
further ruined by recycling facilities
(Mehlhart and Blepp, 2012; Lambert
et al., 2014).
• Large percentages of the produced
plastics are used for packaging.
• Natural disasters such as hurricanes,
tsunamis, and strong sea waves, flash
floods (Thompson et al., 2004;
Desforges et al., 2014).
• LDP (low-density polyethylene)
streaks are used at large extent to
conserve crops, suppress weeds,
increase temperature and retain water
supply in the soil which is termed as
plastic mulching (Sivan 2011; Rillig
2012).
• PS (polystyrene) fibers of 5 to 15 mm
are used in horticulture as a
composting additive (Do and Scherer
2012).

Micro-plastics (MPs) are being yielded from various types of sources

which remaining in the environment at a heterogeneous group of par­
ticles with different diameter, pattern, chemical formation, and relative
density or specific gravity (Duis and Coors 2016). The following sub­
divisions will be discussing the types and proven sources of MPs in the
natural environment.
3.1. Types of microplastics
Based on their origin and sources, MPs are classified into two com­
mon classes such as primary and secondary MPs which are delineated
below:
3.1.1. Primary microplastics
Primary MPs are considered tiny plastic particles which directly
enter the environment and are estimated to represent around 15–31% of
MPs in the oceans (News European Parliament, 2018). However, these
primary MPs can be emanated intentionally due to various operational
activities such as particle emersion from industrial emanation; plastic-
based ingredients of the safeguard, toiletries, & cosmetics products;
and redemption of fibers (GESAMP, 2015; Boucher and Friot, 2017).
Furthermore, these particles consist of polyolefin polymers which are
lipophilic in nature as a result they have the potential to adsorb perni­
cious chemicals from the adjacent water bodies on its surface

3
A. Hasan Anik et al.
(Cauwenberghe et al. 2015). Fig. 1 reflects the evaluation of the Global
sources of primary MPs in the oceans.
3.1.2. Secondary microplastics
Secondary MPs are originating from the breakdown and misman­
agement of macroplastics including various types of plastic bottles,
fishing nets, plastic bags, and diverse types of discarded plastic materials
(Boucher and Friot 2017). Howsoever, due to photodegradation, wave
action, and other weathering processes, these discarded plastic wastes
are converted into shreds of the variant size that termed as secondary
MPs found in both aquatic and terrestrial environment (MacArthur,
2016; Thompson et al., 2004; Boucher and Friot, 2017). Likewise,
approximately 5.25 trillion large plastic pieces (>250,000 tons) are
floating in the world oceans whereas 75 to 90 percent are originating
from land-based and 10 to 25 percent are from ocean-based sources
which are considered as the potential radix of secondary MPs (Eriksen
et al., 2014; Andrady, 2011; Mehlhart and Blepp, 2012). News European
Parliament (2018) reported that 69 to 81 percent of MPs found in the
oceans are secondary MPs.
3.2. Different sources of microplastics
At a glance, Table 2 outlines the potential roots of both primary and
secondary MPs in the environment. Principally, releasing shredded fi­
bers from the synthetic textile industry is considered as one of the sig­
nificant sources of primary MPs due to their tiny size and ineffective
removal approaches and contrariwise, breakages of larger discarded
plastics are deliberated as the most important sources of secondary MPs.
4. Route and fate of microplastics
Microplastics (MPs) are lightweight in nature (Jambeck et al. 2015).
Therefore, they have the potential for widespread dispersal when they
are freed in the environment. Once they are released in the environment
they can be transported by the wind; washed away from the soil due to
rainfall or storm water run-off and enter into the aquatic environment
thereafter (Lambert et al., 2014; Jambeck et al., 2015; US EPA, 1993).
Massive quantities of MPs mostly driven from the terrestrial environ­
ment through freshwater channels such as rivers, estuaries, direct wash
out from agricultural and industrial discharges ultimately sink into the
sea and this overall transportation process is termed as ecocline (Barletta
et al., 2019; Ajith et al., 2020). The following section will be discussed
on the various routes and ultimate fates of MPs in the environment.
4.1. Routes of entry into the environment
Several studies have asserted that a large number of macro and MPs
are usually generating on the land and through the waterways ended up
into the oceans (Horton et al. 2017). However, both primary and sec­
ondary sources are directly or indirectly responsible for the rapid gen­
eration of MPs. For instance; face wash, toothpaste, cosmetics
containing a great number of microbeads that are discharged into the
aquatic bodies through the household basin and other drainage systems.
Moreover, using sewage sludge as fertilizer in the agricultural lands has
become a common scenario that may be a potential emergence of MPs in
the rivers and soil (Sarker et al. 2020). Besides, a study regarding the
retention of MPs within the soil pointed out the presence of synthetic
fibers in the agricultural soil where sewage sludge was lastly applied
around 15 years ago (Zubris and Richards 2005). Whenever these tiny
particles get entered into the streams, they will be subjected to the
identical transportation thereafter along with the sediments through the
channels. However, the transition and retention of MPs in the sediment
are dependent on two factors such as the energy of the river flow and
shape & density of the particles (Knighton 2014). Furthermore, some
polymer fragments will float due to having low density than freshwater
(approx. 1000 kg per cubic meter) or seawater (approx. 1030 kg per
4
Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management 16 (2021) 100530
Table 3
Commonly used polymeric density range as MPs (Sharma & Chatterjee 2017).
Polymer Ranges of Solidity (kg/m3)
Polyethylene (PE): Low-density Polyethylene 910–980: 910–925,
(LDPE), Medium-density polyethylene (MDPE) & 925–940 & 940–980
High-density polyethylene (HDPE)
Polystyrene (PS) 1040–1110
Polypropylene (PP) 890–910
Polyamide (PA) 1130–1500
Polyvinylchloride (PVC) 1200–1450
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) 1380–1390
Polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) 1190–1350
cubic meter) whereas some polymer fragments will assuredly sink as
they have higher solidity (Table 3) (Mehlhart and Blepp, 2012; Horton
and Dixon, 2018).
As soon as MPs attain the oceans, they can be easily and broadly
spread and moving substantial distances from the origin owing to the
tides, winds, and vast covered area (Van Sebille et al., 2012). Also, MPs
may vertically move amid the oceans because of biofouling, fecal pellet
feeding, and marine snow absorption (Cole et al. 2011). Hence,
knowledge regarding the routes of atmospheric MPs (indoor and out­
door air) is still limited though this is a major transit mechanism for MPs
that contributes to the largest possible dispersion as it has no boundary
of outstretching through the different environmental compartments.
4.2. Fates of microplastics in the environment
Once MPs reach into the water body their ultimate fate is to pene­
trate the ocean. Around 80 percent of the overall plastic relics in the
aquatic environment belong to the land-based origins of MPs and
microbead litter (Sharma and Chatterjee 2017). According to the report
of UNEP (2005), approximately 70 percent of the marine junks are
sedimented in the ocean floor whereas the residual 30 percent floating
on the surface seawater and the coastal areas (UNEP 2005). MPs can be
sedimented on beaches and in sub-tidal sediments, and also can readily
accumulate in marine invertebrates known as Tunicates (Sea squirts)
that also be found at significant depths (Browne et al. 2010). Besides,
comparatively less dense MPs can also be airborne which may be
released from bare and untreated landfills (Rillig 2012). Therefore, it is
very crucial to envisage the alterable and stable destiny of MPs as its
transportation and fates are largely dependent on density. However,
after released in the environment the probable fates of MPs are frag­
mentation, soil accumulation, floating across the waterways, sedimen­
tation, shoreline deposition, ingestion by organisms, and transfer
through the food chain as well (Law et al., 2010; Wong et al., 2020).
For instance, the usual fate of MPs may be stuck in sediments for a
long period of time. Thereafter, those stuck MPs might be induced by
several factors such as wave action, tides or bioturbation, and any other
disruptions (GESAMP 2015). Moreover, MPs can be ingested by organ­
isms (Oliveira et al. 2012), then it may either be defecated or trans­
located into the tissues (Sharma and Chatterjee 2017) and thereafter, via
food chain it may be transferred from one to another trophic level (Wu
et al. 2019). Nevertheless, the rate of ingestion and the proven fate of
swallowed MPs are still largely uncertain (Yu et al. 2020). However, it is
understandable that the sequels or fortunes of MPs are very dynamic as
the tiny particles are incessantly mobilized from one environmental
compartment to another. Fig. 2 reflects the overall scenario of sources,
transports, and fates of MPs in the environment.
5. Effects of microplastics on the environment
According to the streams of the literature, MPs have been identified
in all the environmental matrices such as surface water, sediments, and
beaches in the seas (Duis and Coors 2016); deep oceans; arctic ice;
freshwater systems (Sharma and Chatterjee 2017); soil and other
A. Hasan Anik et al.
Fig. 2. Sources, Routes and Fate of MPs in the environment.
terrestrial niches (Sarker et al. 2020); and even in our diet and drinking
water (WHO 2019). Moreover, MPs have been addressed in the body of
diverse faunal species from the miniature plankton to top predators like
large fishes, birds, and mammals that indicate the pernicious impacts of
MPs on an ecosystem (Ašmonaitė and Almroth 2016). The following
sub-sections explain the damaging index and proven effects of MPs in
the environment.
5.1. Microplastics as a vector for chemical contaminants
The prime risk factors of MPs are their stability and persistence in the
environment under various environmental conditions. Furthermore,
several studies have added another risk regarding MPs, where they
claimed that MPs are impregnated with hydrophobic contaminants and
shifted to the organism’s body through ingestion (Wu et al., 2019;
Sharma and Chatterjee, 2017).
Physical appearance and their toxic chemicals may have adverse
effects on the organisms after the ingestion process. Physically the
presence of MPs, may cause a physical threat by internal abrasion
concomitantly the toxic chemicals may also cause deleterious effects in
the organisms (Cole et al. 2011). However, chemical injury due to toxic
chemicals may be much severe and delicate relative to physical damage
(Rochman et al. 2013).
MPs can absorb multiple organic and inorganic pollutants because of
their comparatively broad specific surface area, resulting in indirect
toxicity (Rochman et al., 2013; Eerkes-Medrano et al., 2015). Moreover,
diverse types of MPs polymer may have the affinity with various pol­
lutants like PAHs, POPs, PCBs, DDT, organo-halogenated pesticides,
nonylphenol, and dioxins that have identified on the surface of the
plastic pellets studied from various locations in the beach environment
(Browne et al., 2010; Cauwenberghe et al., 2015; Endo et al., 2005).
Several studies have proven that MPs have a great affinity for the pol­
lutants albeit, Koelmans et al. and Gouin et al. have been developed two
different biodynamic models to appraise the relevancy of MPs as a
5
Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management 16 (2021) 100530
vector for the pollutant. Hence, they have pointed out several un­
certainties in their modeling approach along with limited relevancy.
Therefore, the overall scenario remains in an indecisive circumstance.
5.2. Microplastics effects on the aquatic environment
MPs are ingested by a large variety of aquatic species, for instance,
pelagic species like phytoplankton (Long et al. 2015), zooplankton
(Desforges et al. 2014) and benthic species like amphipods (Thompson
et al. 2004), polychaete worms (Mathalon and Hill, 2014), tubifex
worms (Hurley et al., 2017) on account of their miniature shaped and
abundances in the aquatic environment. Afterward the ingestion, the
movement of MPs across the food chain is not only a matter of disquiet
but also the potentials to absorb toxic contaminants from water and
carry away via biomagnifications into other trophic levels are also
posing significant threats (Thompson et al., 2004; Sharma and Chat­
terjee, 2017).
Fish are usually interim or top predators and may ingest MPs either
directly or via the food web (Oliveira et al. 2012). Smaller MPs in algae
have the potential to cause a higher toxicity level (Gall and Thompson
2015). MPs have been found within the stomach, oral, and ventilation
areas of organisms. According to the report of field surveys in the En­
glish Channel, they have been found MPs in the gastrointestinal tracts of
36.5% in 10 species of fish (Lusher et al. 2013). Moreover, these parti­
cles may be translocated and amassed in particular tissues and cells, e.g.
in gills and intestines of shore crab (Carcinus maenas) in the liver and
intestines of Zebrafish (Lu et al. 2016), in the stomachs of seabird, giant
fish, and whale in a lysosomal system of mussel and the hemolymph and
inside the hemocytes (Lusher et al., 2013; Watts et al., 2014). The
presence of MPs in mussel tissues has the potential of causing toxicity
(neurotoxicity & genotoxicity) and consequently to their predators as
well (De Witte et al. 2014). According to Rist et al. a study conducted on
Daphina magna where they found that except the high body weight and
abated the feeding rate, no major reproductive effects are noted
A. Hasan Anik et al.
Fig. 3. Effects of MPs and animal health consequences.
afterward the exposure of 100 nm particles for 21-days (Rist et al. 2017).
However, MPs can be ingested by the organisms of the producer to the
consumer level, albeit the mechanical studies regarding the accumula­
tion and ecotoxicity of MPs in the aquatic environment are still limited.
5.3. Microplastics effects on the terrestrial environment
The potential impacts of MPs in the terrestrial environment remain
unexplored despite researchers reported the effects of MPs on the
aquatic environment. However, it needs to be considered that due to low
light and oxygen, within soils, MPs might persist for>100 years (Cas­
tañeda et al. 2014). Several activities like water supply, erosion, air
deposition, littering, street runoff, and plastic mulching are deemed as
the root causes of MPs in the soil (Blasing and Amelung, 2018; Corradini
et al., 2019). Besides, MPs can interact with diverse soil fauna and the
negative impacts of this interaction may cause harmful health implica­
tions for them that may disrupt different soil functions (Huerta et al.
2017). For instance, springtails and earthworms are capable of transit
MPs within the soil in both directions (Rillig 2012). The exposure of MPs
may cause structural changes in the burrows of the earthworms which
may result in dysfunction of soil aggregation and operation (Huerta et al.
2017).
However, owing to the impact of MPs, other terrestrial organisms
could also undergo changes in their biophysical environment. Several
cross-sectional studies pointed out that 94 percent among the 17 dead
terrestrial birds in China (Zhu et al. 2018); 27 percent of 230 goats; and
50 percent among 185 sheep carried MPs in their digestive system
(Omidi et al. 2012). Besides, in the vertebrates, leaching of several toxic
chemicals from MPs like bisphenol A, phthalates may cause endocrine
system dysfunction due to estrogenic effects (de Souza Machado et al.,
2018). More importantly, Zhang et al. conducted a study in northeast
China which asserted that low-density microplastics (LDMP) are most
abundant in the farmland soil and they are responsible for the decrement
of soil water holding capacity (Zhang et al. 2020). Thus, de Souza
Machado et al. (2018) pointed out that MPs are creating obstacles over
6
Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management 16 (2021) 100530
the natural indispensable ecosystem services and functions of the
various terrestrial organisms such as soil microorganisms, invertebrates,
birds, plant-pollinators, and vertebrates. Hence, above all these testi­
monies have been introducing MPs as a threat to the terrestrial
ecosystem.
5.4. Microplastics and human health
According to Sharma and Chatterjee (2017), primary MPs from
various sources such as toothpaste (Lassen et al. 2015), cleaning prod­
ucts, and cosmetics are considered as the probable sources of human
exposure of MPs. Thereafter, in 2018 a report of ‘The Guardian’ pointed
out that, MPs have been determined in the stool sample of eight par­
ticipants from Japan, Russia, and Europe. Top of that among the
determined nine different types of MPs ranged from 50 to 500 μm,
polypropylene, and polyethylene terephthalate were the most abundant
types. Moreover, the study indicated that humans may come in contact
with various types of MPs through the food chain and they also predicted
that approximately 50 percent of the world population might have MPs
in their feces (Harvey and Watts 2018).
The presence of MPs in seafood is increasing day by day which has
negative health consequences on the human body (Yu et al. 2020). Be­
sides, MPs have been determined to be ingested by various mercantile
aquatic organisms like a mussel (Yu et al. 2020), oyster, crab (BfR 2015),
and fish (Campanale et al. 2020) and shifted along with the food chain
(Jabeen et al., 2017; BfR, 2015). In addition, various fruit and vegetable
plants may uptake MPs from the soil, and through the food chain,
humans may consume approximately 80 mg of MPs per day (Enyoh
et al., 2019; Campanale et al., 2020). However, there are some dispu­
tations regarding the effects of MPs on human health. Where few studies
have pointed out that there are no notable effects of MPs on human
health as the tiny particles may take across to human’s gastrointestinal
tract (ACS 2020) albeit, few studies have assumed that MPs may cause
probable human health hazards like infertility, obesity, and cancer
(GESAMP, 2015; Sharma and Chatterjee, 2017). According to the report
A. Hasan Anik et al.
Fig. 4. Schematic delineation of existing removal approaches of MPs.
of the American Chemical Society (ACS), few researchers have shown
that MPs can amass in human organs. In their studies, they have taken
forty-seven samples of four organs (lungs, liver, spleen, and kidneys); by
the use of μ-Raman spectrometry; they have analyzed MPs from those
samples (ACS 2020). Therefore, it is perceptible that MPs can transfer
into the human body via the food chain, albeit, a large extent of studies
are indispensable to ensure the effects of MPs on human health. Here,
Fig. 3 depicts the possible health consequences in animals due to the
exposure of MPs.
6. Microplastics identification and removal approaches
MPs pollution is increasing on account of the haphazard usage and
poor management of the numerous plastic goods. Apart from that, MPs
are using as a key ingredient in case of some particular industries
including textiles, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, etc. Thus, an
embargo on any sort of usage of MPs would not be a cost-effective so­
lution concerning such sectors. Therefore, future researchers should
introduce holistic approaches including sustainable management stra­
tegies and cost-effective technologies for the identification, character­
ization, and removal of MPs from the environment.
Different types of MPs are composed of diverse types of polymer.
Therefore, polymer identification is an emergent strategy as different
polymer requires different separation and quantification techniques.
Commonly used separation techniques are density separation, filtration,
and visual sorting. Density and color are used in visual sorting that
provides a time-consuming and less accurate result, arising question
about visually classified MPs as the polymer properties may be
7
Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management 16 (2021) 100530
influenced due to weathering (Ryan et al., 2009; Sharma and Chatterjee,
2017; Manalu et al., 2017). It is strongly apparent the usage of IR or
Raman spectroscopy for the further analysis of all particles with a size
between 20 and 100 µm in dimension. Currently, the most common
processes for detecting the chemical composition of MPs are Fourier
Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FT-IR) and Infrared spectrophotom­
etry (Prasath and Poon, 2018; Duis and Coors, 2016). Some other
methods namely: X-ray photo electron spectroscopy (XPS), Energy-
disperse X-ray spectroscopy (EDS), Transmission electron microscopy
(TEM), Atomic force microscopy (AFM), Scanning electron microscopy
(SEM), Stereomicroscope and others are also promising alternatives
(Elert et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2018; Afrin et al. 2020).
Furthermore, along with the identification, removal approaches are
also exigent to remove MPs from the diverse environmental compart­
ments. Hence, Fig. 4 schematically delineates various removal ap­
proaches under three general types including physical, chemical and
biological. Besides, Table 4 summarizes various existing removal ap­
proaches, mechanisms, types of MPs removed, and efficiencies where-
else Table 5 abridges their advantages and disadvantages as well.
According to Lares et al. (2018), among all these removal ap­
proaches, membrane bioreactors have the highest efficiency than con­
ventional activated sludge (Gurung et al. 2016) and other treatment
processes (Talvitie et al., 2017; Long et al., 2019). Contrariwise, the
biological degradation approach has the lowest efficiency rate (Dawson
et al. 2018). However, biological removal approaches are still in the
developmental processes, whereby researchers can do more to improve
the performance of this approach to a significant degree. In comparison,
highly effective and advanced removal methods are not feasible to
A. Hasan Anik et al. Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management 16 (2021) 100530

Table 4
Mechanisms, type of MPs removed and efficiencies of various current approaches for the removal of MPs.
Type Approaches Mechanisms Types of MPs removed Efficiency References

Adsorption on green microalgae
PHYSICAL Dynamic membrane filtration
Membrane bioreactors
Combined membrane
bioreactor–conventional
activated sludge
Tertiary treatment technologies
CHEMICAL Classic coagulation and
agglomerat-ion methods
Electro-coagulation
BIOLOGICAL Biological removal through
ingestion by marine organisms
and bacterial degradation
Green algae like Fucus vesiculosus, 20–500 nm ~ 94.5% removal efficiency. (Sundbæk et al.,
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata etc. from polystyrene MPs However, the sorption of 2018; Martins et al.,
their cut region’s cell wall releases positively charged 2013; Nolte et al.,
gelatinous alginate compounds. This polystyrene MPs is more 2017)
anionic polysaccharide compound efficient than negatively
accelerates the sorption of the MPs on its charged ones.
surface.
The DM filtration system consists of MPs from synthetic DM can reduce 195 NTU (Li et al., 2018;
storage tank, a filtration setup, and an wastewater effluent turbidity to < 1 NTU Ersahin et al., 2017;
effluent collection tank. The factors under within 20 min. Horton and Dixon,
investigation are influent flux (solid flux), 2018)
influent particle concentration,
transmembrane pressure, total filtration
resistance and effluent turbidity. MPs are
removed with decreasing effluent
turbidity.
An integration of porous membrane and Polymeric debris and 99.9% removal efficiency (Lares et al., 2018;
biological processes for treating primary MPs of any size Gurung et al., 2016;
effluents. Talvitie et al., 2017)
In addition to membrane bioreactor it MPs from municipal 99.4% removal efficiency (Lares et al., 2018;
includes aeration tank, where wastewater wastewater Gurung et al., 2016)
is mixed with air to active microbes, and a
sedimentation tank, from where activated
sludge is separated, for further
purification
This includes disc filter, rapid sand MPs from wastewater Discfilter: 40–98.5% (from (Talvitie et al., 2017;
filtration, and dissolved air flotation for 0.5 to 2.0 to 0.03–0.3 MP/L) Rossi, 2014)
treating secondary effluent of wastewater Rapid sand filter: 97% (from
treatment plant. 0.7 to 0.02 MP/L), Dissolved
Discfilter contains filter panels, used to air
remove MPs depending on retention time Flotation: 95% (from 2.0 to
and cake formation by sludge. 0.1 MP/L)
Rapid sand filtration has a layer of 1 m
gravel and 0.5 m quartz with thin layer of
microbes for MP removal.
Dissolved Air Flotation includes air
pressure in water and chemicals to
remove MPs.
Uses coagulants like Fe and Al based salts, Polyethylene MPs (for Efficiency can increase from (Ariza-Tarazona et al.
FeCl3⋅6H2O, polyacrylamide (PAM), and Fe and Al based salts) 25.83% to 61.19% with 15 2019)
other coagulants to form complexes with mg/L PAM
MPs by exchanging ligands.
In water stream, metal ions (Fe2+ and Polyethylene MPs 90–90.24% removal (Perren et al., 2018;
Al3+) released from electrodes reacts with efficiency Talvitie et al., 2017)
hydroxide to form metal hydroxide co-
agulants to form sludge blankets for
adhering MPs.
Antarctic Krill (Euphausiasuperba), a Polyethylene, Efficiency varies organism (Arossa et al., 2019;
planktonic crustacean; Agios consortium polystyrene, wise. Auta et al., 2017;
and Souda consortium; fungus Zalerion polyethylene 20–66.03% or more Dawson et al., 2018;
maritimum; Bacillus cereus and Bacillus terephthalate, and Cocca et al., 2017;
gottheilii; Red Sea giant clam, Tridacna polypropylene MPs Paço et al., 2017).
maxima etc. converts MPs to nano-plastics
or degrade them as a nutrient source.

implement worldwide. Thus, the researchers and decision-makers
should develop a standardized removal strategy that would be effec­
tive and facile to integrate around the world as well.
7. Research gap analysis
Major research gaps and required amendments are summarized
below:
1. The occurrence of MPs from wastewater treatment facilities in the
aquatic environment is demonstrated by a significant number of
scientific studies. However, the knowledge regarding other pathways
including origins of MPs from landfill sites, soil fertilizers into the
surface and groundwater ecosystem are largely missing.
2. There are no standard methods for MPs identification, character­
ization, and removal from various environmental media. Moreover,
existing methods are not accurate with less consistency of results.
3. Airborne MPs have received tremendous research interest as a sig­
nificant contributor to the environment. However, their occurrence,
deposition, atmospheric fallout, sampling and detection methods,
health consequences, especially in the indoor and outdoor air have
been hugely absent in the stream of MPs research.
4. In comparison with aquatic MPs, researches on the soil MPs are
largely unexplored. More specifically, the lack of in-depth knowl­
edge regarding the transportation pathways, quantification and
screening process, and treatment methods of soil MPs are the crucial
lacuna of present MPs research.
5. Furthermore, few researchers have reported GHGs emissions from
MPs (Ren et al., 2019; Shen et al., 2019, 2020). Thus, the researchers

8
A. Hasan Anik et al. Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management 16 (2021) 100530

Table 5
Advantages and disadvantages of various current approaches for the removal of MPs.
Type Approaches Advantages Disadvantages References

Adsorption on green microalgae
PHYSICAL Dynamic membrane filtration
Membrane bioreactors
Combined membrane
bioreactor–convention-al
activated sludge
Tertiary treatment technologies
CHEMICAL Classic coagulation and
agglomerat-ion methods
Electro-coagulation
BIOLOGICAL Biological removal through
ingestion by marine organisms and
bacterial degradation
Lofty aptitude of the surfaces to adsorb weeny It is not a recyclable method, chemical adhesion (Lagarde et al.,
MPs fragments, selectivity based on MPs surface of the MPs causes poisoning onto its surface 2016; Zhang et al.,
infusion 2017)
Lower filtration inhibition, less transmembrane Require ample cleanup activities to fudge undue (Li et al. 2018)
influence, facile functioning, non-chemical membrane distorting, energy requirement,
interference sludge procurement because of its plane
formation
It is conducted through using associated Removal percentage depends on the shape, (Lares et al. 2018)
commenced treatment methods with porous membrane distorting
membranes
It can treat a large range of influent and also Lengthy retention times in the tank, massive (Gurung et al. 2016)
applicable in large extent, sturdy, cost-effective, surface area is required for sedimentation, the
malleable high expense of energy and operating, and
settlement of sludge
More feasible mix treatment processes, low Could be a source of secondary MPs, inability to (Leslie et al., 2017;
expenses for maintaining, facile operation deal with comparatively smaller MPs, large Long et al., 2019;
sludge volume and huge device Mintenig et al.,
2017)
It can remove tiny micro-particles, adjustable Amalgamation of chemicals to media, improper (Herbort et al.,
operational conditions, facile instrumental for large MPs 2018; Ma et al.,
devices 2019)
Compatible for the divergence of nano-particles, Periodic necessity for the replacement of (Perren et al. 2018)
No chance of secondary pollution, small sludge sacrificial anode, cathode passivation, useless in
volume, energy efficient, cost-effective, the fields except for electricity
automation pliancy
Simple and safe for the use of large extent, less Large volume of microbial assemblages on the (Arossa et al., 2019;
functioning expenses, effectively applicable in surface, difficult to control environmental Auta et al., 2017;
diverse circumstances, pliability to operate large ambiences, large extent analysis is not effective, Dawson et al. 2018)
extent of wastewater peculiarities and streams deficiency of reproducibility, hard to find
competent microbial assemblage

should pay their maximum attention to apprehend the impacts of
MPs on global climate change and oceanic carbon sequestration.
8. Concluding remarks
This study elucidates the proven origins of MPs along with their fates
and transportation into the environment. Besides, the above contem­
plates delineating the possible effects of MPs in the various environ­
mental compartments. However, contributions of secondary MPs are
more intensive to cause detrimental environmental consequences rela­
tive to primary MPs. The routes of transportation of these two types of
MPs are assorted but the fate and effects are almost analogous.
Furthermore, these tiny particles are highly persistent in the environ­
ment and if the inputs of plastics are to cease, the existing marine litter
will act as a source of ulterior MPs and capable of causing a malignant
effect on both aquatic and terrestrial environment. Therefore, side by
side ascertaining sources, fate, and effects of MPs; it is high time to
contemplate the removal measures along with sustainable remedial
action. More importantly, this present study recommends that MPs is a
global problem, thus, all the countries should strengthen their moni­
toring approach unanimously to estimate the global abundances of MPs.
Besides, the government and policy-makers should initiate forcible
legislations and set ‘zero tolerance’ regarding the use of mega and macro
plastics and compel the industries to use biodegradable ingredients
instead of non-degradable ingredients.
Authors contributions
MA and AHA had the idea and designed the study. MA, AHA, SH, and
MBS performed the background study, literature search, critical review,
data analysis and provided support for drafting manuscript. AHA was a
major contributor in writing the manuscript. MA, MTH, and MMR
contributed in idea generation and reviewed and revised the manuscript
and did the necessary linguistic corrections. All authors read and
approved the final manuscript.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
Afrin, S., Uddin, M.K., Rahman, M.M., 2020. Micro-plastics contamination in the soil
from Urban Landfill site, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Heliyon 6 (11), e05572. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05572.
Ajith, N., Arumugam, S., Parthasarathy, S., Manupoori, S., Janakiraman, S., 2020. Global
distribution of microplastics and its impacts on marine environment- a review.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09015-5.
Alimba, C.G., Faggio, C., 2019. Micro-plastics in the marine environment: current trends
in environmental pollution and mechanisms of toxicological profile. Environ.
Toxicol. Pharmacol. 6689 (18), 30571–30574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
etap.2019.03.001.
American Chemical Society, ACS, 2020. Micro and nanoplastics detectable in human
tissues. Nanomaterials. https://phys.org/news/2020-08-micro-nanoplastics-human
-tissues.html. Accessed 26 June 2020.
Anderson, A., Park, B.J., Palace, V.P., 2016. Micro-plastics in aquatic environments:
implications for Canadian ecosystems. Environ. Pollut. 218, 269–280.
Andrady, A.L., 2011. Micro-plastics in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62,
1596–1605.
Ariza-Tarazona, M.C., Villarreal-Chiu, J.F., Barbieri, V., Siligardi, C., Cedillo-González, E.
I., 2019. New strategy for micro-plastic degradation: green photocatalysis using a
protein-based porous N-TiO2 semiconductor. Ceram. Int. 45 (7), 9618–9624.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceram int.2018.10.208.
Arossa, S., Martin, C., Rossbach, S., Duarte, C.M., 2019. Micro-plastic removal by red sea
giant clam (Tridacna maxima). Environ. Pollut. 252, 1257–1266. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envpol.2019.05.149.
Ašmonaitė, G., Almroth, B.C., 2016. Effects of microplastics on organisms and impacts on
the environment: balancing the known and unknown. Swedish Environmental
Protection Agency.
Auta, H., Emenike, C., Fauziah, S., 2017. Screening of Bacillus strains isolated from
mangrove ecosystems in Peninsular Malaysia for microplastic degradation. Environ.
Pollut. 231, 1552–1559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.09.043.
Baldwin, A.K., Corsi, S.R., Mason, S.A., 2016. Plastic debris in 29 great lakes tributaries:
relations to water- shed attributes and hydrology. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50,
10377–10385.
Barnes, D.K., Galgani, F., Thompson, R.C., Barlaz, M., 2009. Accumulation and
fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B
364, 1985–1998.

9
A. Hasan Anik et al.
Barletta, M., Lima, A.R.A., Costa, M.F., 2019. Distribution, sources and con- sequences of
nutrients, persistent organic pollutants, metals and micro-plastics in South American
estuaries. Sci. Total Environ. 651, 1199–1218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2018.09.276.
BfR, 2015. Micro-plastic Particles in Food. BfR Opinion No. 013/2015 of 30 April 2015.
English summary of the report Mikroplastikpartikel in Lebensmitteln, Stellungnahme
Nr. 013/2015.
Biginagwa, F.J., Mayoma, B.S., Shashoua, Y., Syberg, K., Khan, F.R., 2016. First evidence
of micro-plastics in the African Great Lakes: recovery from Lake Victoria Nile perch
and Nile tilapia. J. Great Lakes Res. 42, 146–149.
Blasing, M., Amelung, W., 2018. Plastics in soil: analytical methods and possible sources.
Sci. Total. Environ. 612, 422–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2017.08.086.
Blumenröder, J., Sechet, P., Kakkonen, J.E., Hartl, M.G.J., 2017. Micro-plastic
contamination of intertidal sediments of Scapa Flow, Orkney: a first assessment.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 124, 112–120.
Boucher, J., Friot, D., 2017. In: Primary Micro-plastics in the Oceans: A Global
Evaluation of Sources. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, p. 43.
Browne, M.A., Galloway, T.S., Thompson, R.C., 2010. Spatial patterns of plastic debris
along estuarine shorelines. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 3404–3409.
Bucci, K., Rochman, C., 2020. Micro-plastic pollution is everywhere, but scientists are
still learning how it harms wildlife. https://theconversation.com/microplastic-poll
ution-is-everywhere-but-scientists-are-still-learning-how-it-harms-wildlife-129882.
Accessed 14 July 2020.
Campanale, C., Massarelli, C., Savino, I., Locaputo, V., Uricchio, V.F., 2020. A detailed
review study on potential effects of micro-plastics and additives of concern on
human health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17 (4), 1212. https://doi.org/
10.3390/ijerph17041212.
Castañeda, R.A., Avlijas, S., Simard, M.A., Ricciardi, A., Smith, R., 2014. Micro-plastic
pollution in St. Lawrence River sediments. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 71 (12),
1767–1771.
Cauwenberghe, L.V., Devriese, L., Galgani, F., Robbens, J., Janssen, C.R., 2015. Micro-
plastics in sediments: a review of techniques, occurrence and effects. Mar. Environ.
Res. 111, 5–17.
Cocca, M., Di Pace, E., Errico, M.E., Gentile, G., Montarsolo, A., Mossotti, R., 2017.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Microplastic Pollution in the
Mediterranean Sea. Springer, Berlin.
Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Halsband, C., Galloway, T.S., 2011. Micro-plastics as
contaminants in the marine environment: a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62 (12),
2588–2597.
Corradini, F., Meza, P., Eguiluz, R., Casado, F., Huerta-Lwanga, E., Geissen, V., 2019.
Evidence of micro-plastic accumulation in agricultural soils from sewage sludge
disposal. Sci. Total. Environ. 671, 411–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2019.03.368.
Dawson, A.L., Kawaguchi, S., King, C.K., Townsend, K.A., King, R., Huston, W.M.,
Nash, S.M.B., 2018. Turning microplastics into nanoplastics through digestive
fragmentation by Antarctic krill. Nat. Commun. 9 (1), 1001. https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41467-018-03465-9.
Desforges, J.P., Galbraith, M., Dangerfield, N., Ross, P.S., 2014. Widespread distribution
of micro-plastics in subsurface seawater in the NE Pacific Ocean. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
79, 94–99.
de Souza Machado, A.A., Kloas, W., Zarfl, C., 2018. Micro-plastics as an emerging threat
to terrestrial ecosystems. Glob. Chang. Biol. 24, 1405–1416.
De Witte, Devriese, B., Bekaert, L., Hoffman, S., Vandermeersch, G., Cooreman, G.,
Robbens, K., 2014. Quality assessment of the blue mussel (Mytilus edulis):
comparison between commercial and wild types. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 85, 146–155.
Do, T.C.V., Scherer, H.W., 2012. Compost and biogas residues as basic materials for
potting substrates. Plant Soil Environ. 58, 459–464.
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 (1–2), 290–293.
Duis, K., Coors, A., 2016. Micro-plastics in the aquatic and terrestrial environment:
sources (with a specific focus on personal care products), fate and effects. Environ.
Sci. Eur. 28, 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-015-0069-y.
Dümichen, E., Eisentraut, P., Bannick, C.G., Barthel, A., Senz, R., 2017. Fast
identification of microplastics in complex environmental samples by a thermal
degradation method. Chemosphere 174, 572–584.
Eerkes-Medrano, D., Thompson, R.C., Aldridge, D.C., 2015. Micro-plastics in freshwater
systems: a review of the emerging threats, identification of knowledge gaps and
prioritisation of research needs. Water Res 75, 63–82.
Elert, A.M., Becker, R., Duemichen, E., Eisentraut, P., Falkenhagen, J., Sturm, H.,
Braun, U., 2017. Comparison of different methods for MP detection: what can we
learn from them, and why asking the right question before measurements matters?
Environ. Pol. 231 (2), 1256–1264.
Endo, S., Takizawa, R., Okuda, K., Takada, H., 2005. Concentration of polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) in beached resin pellets: variability among individual particles and
regional differences. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 50, 1103–1114.
Enyoh, C.E., Verla, A.W., Verla, E.N., 2019. Uptake of micro-plastics by Plant: a reason to
worry or to be happy? World Sci. News 131, 256–267.
Ersahin, M.E., Tao, Y., Ozgun, H., Gimenez, J.B., Spanjers, H., van Lier, J.B., 2017.
Impact of anaerobic dynamic membrane bioreactor configuration on treatment and
filterability performance. J. Membr. Sci. 526, 387–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
memsc i.2016.12.057.
Eriksen, M., Lebreton, L.C.M., Carson, H.S., 2014. Plastic pollution in the world’s oceans:
more than 5 trillion plastic pieces weighing over 250,000 tons Afloat at Sea. PLoS
ONE 9, e111913.
10
Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management 16 (2021) 100530
Eubeler, J.P., Bernhard, M., Knepper, T.P., 2010. Environmental biodegradation of
synthetic polymers: II. Biodegradation of differentpolymer groups. Trends Anal.
Chem. 29, 84–100.
European Commission, 2017. Micro-plastics Focus on Food and Health 14 December.
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC110629/jrc110629_
final.pdf. Accessed 4 April 2020.
Free, C.M., Jensen, O.P., Mason, S.A., Eriksen, M., Williamson, N.J., 2014. High-levels
micro-plastic pollution in a large remote, mountain lake. Mar temperature and
selected chemical digestion methods on microplastic. Pollut. Bull. 85, 156–166.
Fuller, S., Gautam, A., 2016. A procedure for measuring microplastics using pressurized
fluid extraction. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 5774–5780, 6b00816.
Gajendiran, A., Khare, K., Chacko, A.M., Abraham, J., 2016. Fungal mediated
degradation of low density polyethylene by a novel strain Chamaeleomyces viridis.
JAKA1. RJPBCS 7, 3123–3130.
Gall, S.C., Thompson, R.C., 2015. The impact of debris on marine life. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
92, 170–179.
Gallagher, A., Rees, A., Rowe, R., Stevens, J., Wright, P., 2016. Micro-plastics in the
Solent estuarine complex, UK: an initial assessment. Pollut. Bull. 102, 243e249.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.04.002.
GESAMP, 2015. Sources, fate and effects of micro-plastics in the marine environment: a
global assessment. In: P.J., Kershaw (Ed.), (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/
IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNDP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine
Environmental Protection). Rep Stud GESAMP No. 90, pp 96.
Geyer, R., Jambeck, J.R., Law, K.L., 2017. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever
made. Sci. Adv. 3, e1700782.
Gigault, J., Halle, A.T., Baudrimont, M., et al., 2018. Current opinion: what is a
nanoplastic? Environ. Pollut. 235, 1030–1034.
Gregory, M.R., 1996. Plastic ‘scrubbers’ in hand cleansers: a further (and minor) source
for marine pollution identified. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 32, 867–871.
Gurung, K., Ncibi, M.C., Fontmorin, J.-M., Särkkä, H., Sillanpää, M., 2016. Incorporating
submerged MBR in conventional activated sludge process for municipal wastewater
treatment: a feasibility and performance assessment. J. Membr. Sci. Technol.
https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-9589.1000158.
Hamid, Mallick, F.H., Mohnet, N., 2018. Worldwide distribution and abundance of
microplastic: how dire is the situation? Waste Manage. Res. 36 (10), 873–897.
Hara, J., Frias, J., Nash, R., 2020. Quantification of microplastic ingestion by the
decapod crustacean Nephrops norvegicus from Irish waters. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 152,
110905.
Harvey, F., Watts, J., 2018. Micro-plastics found in human stools for the first time.
Plastics, Food Pollution News, The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/enviro
nment/2018/oct/22/microplastics-found-in-human-stools-for-the-first-time.
Accessed 24 October 2020.
Herbort, A.F., Sturm, M.T., Fiedler, S., Abkai, G., Schuhen, K., 2018. Alkoxy- silyl
induced agglomeration: a new approach for the sustainable removal of microplastic
from aquatic systems. J. Polym. Environ. 26 (11), 4258–4270. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10924-018-1287-3.
Hendrickson, E., Minor, E.C., Schreiner, K., 2018. Micro-plastic abundance and
composition in Western Lake superior as determined via microscopy, Pyr-GC/MS,
and FTIR. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 1787–1796.
Horton, A.A., Dixon, S.J., 2018. Micro-plastics: an introduction to environmental
transport processes. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 5 (2), 1268–1283. https://doi.
org/10.1002/wat2.1268.
Horton, A.A., Walton, A., Spurgeon, D.J., Lahive, E., Svendsen, C., 2017. Micro-plastics
in freshwater and terrestrial environments: evaluating the current understanding to
identify the knowledge gaps and future research priorities. Sci. Total Environ. 586,
127–141.
Huerta, L.E., Gertsen, H., Gooren, H., Peters, P., Salánki, T., van der, P.M., Besseling, E.,
Koelmans, A.A., Geissen, V., 2017. Environ. Pollut. 220, 523–531.
Hurley, R.R., Woodward, J.C., Rothwell, J.J., 2017. Ingestion of microplastics by
freshwater tubifex worms. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51 (21), 12844–12851. https://doi.
org/10.1021/acs.est.7b03567.
Ivar Do Sul, J.A., Costa, M.F., 2014. The present and future of microplastic pollution in
the marine environ- ment. Environ. Pollut. 185, 352–364.
Jabeen, K., Su, L., Li, J., Yang, D., Tong, C., Mu, J., Shi, H., 2017. Micro-plastics and
mesoplastics in fish from coastal and fresh waters of China. Environ. Pollut. 221,
141–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.11.055.
Jambeck, J., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T.R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A.L., Law, K.L.,
2015. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 347 (6223), 768–771.
Karim, E.M., Sanjee, A.S., Mahmud, S., Shaha, M., Moniruzzaman, M., Das, C.K., 2019.
Micro-plastics pollution in Bangladesh: current scenario and future research
perspective. Chem. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1080/02757540.2019.1688309.
Karlsson, T.M., Vethaak, A.D., Almroth, B.C., et al., 2017. Screening for microplastics in
sediment, water, marine invertebrates and fish: method development and
microplastic accumulation. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 122, 403–408.
Knighton, D., 2014. Fluvial forms and processes: a new perspective. Routledge,
Abingdon.
Lagarde, F., Olivier, O., Zanella, M., Daniel, P., Hiard, S., Caruso, A., 2016. Micro-plastic
interactions with freshwater microalgae: hetero- aggregation and changes in plastic
density appear strongly dependent on polymer type. Environ. Pollut. 215, 331–339.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.05.006.
Lambert, S., Sinclair, C.J., Boxall, A.B., 2014. Occurrence, degradation and effect of
polymer-based materials in the environment. Rev. Environ. Contamin. Toxicol. 227,
1–53.
Lares, M., Ncibi, M.C., Sillanpää, M., Sillanpää, M., 2018. Occurrence, identification and
removal of microplastic particles and fibers in conventional activated sludge process
A. Hasan Anik et al.
and advanced MBR technology. Water Res. 133, 236–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j. watres.2018.01.049.
Lassen, C., Foss Hansen, S., Magnusson, K., Norén, F., Bloch Hartmann, NI., Rehne
Jensen, P., Gissel Nielsen, T., Brinch, A., 2015. Micro-plastics—occurrence, effects
and sources of releases to the environment in Denmark. Environmental project No.
1793. Copenhagen: Environment Protection Agency, Ministry of Environment and
Food of Denmark.
Law, K.L., Oceans, T.R., 2014. Micro-plastics in the seas. Science 345, 144–145.
Law, K.L., Morét-Ferguson, S., Maximenko, N.A., Proskurowski, G., 2010. Plastic
accumulation in the North Atlantic subtropical gyre. Science 329, 1185–1188.
Lebreton, L., Slat, B., Ferrari, F., et al., 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.
Li, L., Wu, S., Lu, S., Liu, M., Song, Y., Fu, Z., Shi, H., et al., 2018. Micro-plastic particles
cause intestinal damage and other adverse effects in zebrafish Danio rerio and
nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Sci. Total Environ. 619, 1–8. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.103.
Leslie, H.A., Brandsma, S.H., van Velzen, M.J., Vethaak, A.D., 2017. Micro-plastics en
route: field measurements in the Dutch river delta and Amsterdam canals,
wastewater treatment plants, North Sea sediments and biota. Environ. Int. 101,
133–142.
Long, Z., Pan, Z., Wang, W., Ren, J., Yu, X., Lin, L., Lin, H., Chen, H., Jin, X., 2019. Micro-
plastic abundance, characteristics, and removal in wastewater treatment plants in a
coastal city of China. Water Res. 155, 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2019.02.028.
Long, M., Moriceau, B., Gallinari, M., Lambert, C., Huvet, A., Raffray, J., Soudant, P.,
2015. Interactions between micro-plastics and phytoplankton aggregates: impact on
their re- spective fates. Mar. Chem. 175, 39–46.
Lots, F.A.E., Behrens, P., Vijver, M.G., 2017. A large-scale investigation of micro-plastic
contamination: abundance and characteristics of micro-plastics in European beach
sediment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 123, 219–226.
Lu, Y., Zhang, Y., Deng, Y., Jiang, W., Zhao, Y., Geng, J., Ding, L., Ren, H., 2016. Uptake
and accumulation of polystyrene microplastics in zebrafish (Danio rerio) and toxic
effects in liver. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 4054–4060.
Lusher, A.L., McHugh, M., Thompson, R.C., 2013. Occurrence of micro-plastics in the
gastrointestinal tract of pelagic and demersal fish from the English Channel. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 67, 94–99.
Ma, B., Xue, W., Ding, Y., Hu, C., Liu, H., Qu, J., 2019. Removal char- acteristics of
microplastics by Fe-based coagulants during drinking water treatment. J. Environ.
Sci. 78, 267–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2018.10.006.
MacArthur, 2016. The New Plastics Economy: rethinking the future of plastics. https
://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation. org/publications/the-new-plastics-economy-re
thinking-the-future-of-plastics. Accessed 28 March 2020.
Manalu, A.A., Hariyadi, S., Wardiatno, Y., 2017. Micro-plastics abundance in coastal
sediments of Jakarta Bay, Indonesia. AACL Bioflux 10, 1164–1173.
Martins, M.J.F., Mota, C.F., Pearson, G.A., 2013. Sex-biased gene expression in the brown
alga Fucus vesiculosus. BMC Genom. 14 (1), 294–326. https://doi.org/10.1186/
1471-2164-14-294.
Mathalon, A., Hill, P., 2014. Microplastic fibers in the intertidal ecosystem surrounding
Halifax Harbor, Nova Scotia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 81 (1) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2014.02.018.
Matsuguma, Y., Takada, H., Kumata, H., 2017. Micro-plastics in sediment cores from
Asia and Africa as indicators of temporal trends in plastic pollution. Arch. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol. 73, 230–239.
Mbachu, O., Jenkins, G., Pratt, C., Kaparaju, P., 2020. A New contaminant
superhighway? A review of sources, measurement techniques and fate of
atmospheric microplastics. Water Air Soil. Pollut. 231, 85. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11270-020-4459-4.
Mehlhart, G., Blepp, M. 2012. Study on land-sourced litter (LSL) in the marine
environment: review of sources and literature in the context of the initiative of the
Declaration of the Global Plastics Associations for Solutions on Marine Litter. Öko-
Institut e.V, Darmstadt/Freiburg.
Mintenig, S., Int-Veen, I., Löder, M.G., Primpke, S., Gerdts, G., 2017. Identification of
microplastic in effluents of waste water treat- ment plants using focal plane array-
based micro-Fourier-trans- form infrared imaging. Water Res. 108, 365–372. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.11.015.
Moore, C.J., 2008. Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: a rapidly increasing,
long-term threat. Environ. Res. 108, 131–139.
Naidoo, T., Sershen, Thompson, R.C., Rajkaran, A., 2020. Quantification and
characterization of micro-plastics ingested by selected juvenile fish species
associated with mangroves in KwaZulu-Natal. South Africa. Environ. Pollut. 257,
113635.
News European Parliament, 2018. Micro-plastics: sources, effects and solutions.” 22
November. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/2
0181116STO19217/microplastics-sources-effects-and-solutions. Accessed 3 April
2020.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), 2018. What are
microplastics? https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/microplastics.html. Accessed 1
April 2020.
Nolte, T.M., Hartmann, N.B., Kleijn, J.M., Garnæs, J., van de Meent, D., Hendriks, A.J.,
Baun, A., 2017. The toxicity of plastic nanoparticles to green algae as influenced by
surface modification, medium hardness and cellular adsorption. Aquat. Toxicol. 183,
11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquat ox.2016.12.005.
Nor, N.H.M., Obbard, J.P., 2014. Micro-plastics in Singapore’s coastal mangrove
ecosystems. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 79, 278–283.
11
Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management 16 (2021) 100530
Oliveira, M., Ribeiro, A., Guilhermino, L., 2012. Effects of short-term exposure to
microplastics and pyrene on Pomatoschistus microps (Teleostei Gobiidae). Comp.
Biochem. Physiol. A Mol. Integr. Physiol. 163, S20.
Omidi, A., Naeemipoor, H., Hosseini, M., 2012. Plastic debris in the digestive tract of
sheep and goats: an increasing environmental contamination in Birjand. Iran. Bull.
Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 88, 691–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-012-0587-
x.
Paço, A., Duarte, K., da Costa, J.P., Santos, P.S., Pereira, R., Pereira, M., Freitas, A.C.,
Duarte, A.C., Rocha-Santos, T.A., 2017. Biodegradation of polyethylene micro-
plastics by the marine fungus Zalerion maritimum. Sci. Total Environ. 586, 10–15.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scito tenv.2017.02.017.
Perren, W., Wojtasik, A., Cai, Q., 2018. Removal of microbeads from wastewater using
electrocoagulation. ACS Omega 3 (3), 3357–3364. https://doi.org/10.1021/
acsomega.7b02037.
Plastics Europe Plastics – the Facts, 2018. An Analysis of European Plastic Production,
Demand and Waste Data. https://www.plasticseurope.org/en/ resources/market-da
ta. Accessed 21 March 2020.
Prasath, B.B., Poon, K., 2018. The impacts of micro-plastics to environment. J. Environ.
Hazards. https://www.hilarispublisher.com/open-access/the-impacts-of-microplast
ics-to-environment.pdf.
Regnell, F., 2019. Dispersal of micro-plastic from a modern artificial turf pitch with
preventive measures. Ecoloop. https://www.genan.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020
/02/MP-dispersal-from-Bergavik-IP-Kalmar-Report.pdf.
Reimonn, G., Lu, T., Gandhi, N., Chen, W.T., 2019. Review of micro-plastic pollution in
the environment and emerging recycling solutions. J. Renew. Mater. https://doi.
org/10.32604/jrm.2019.08055.
Ren, X., Tang, J., Liu, X., Liu, Q., 2019. Effects of micro-plastics on greenhouse gas
emissions and the microbial community in fertilized soil. Environ. Pollut. 256,
113347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113347.
Rillig, M.C., 2012. Micro-plastic in terrestrial ecosystems and the soil? Environ. Sci.
Technol. 46, 6453–6454.
Rist, S., Baun, A., Hartmann, N.B., 2017. Ingestion of micro and nanoplastics in Daphnia
magna - quantification of body burdens and assessment of feeding rates and
reproduction. Environ. Pollut. 228, 398–407.
Rochman, C.M., Hoh, E., Kurobe, T., Teh, S.J., 2013. Ingested plastic transfers hazardous
chemicals to fish and induces hepatic stress. Sci. Rep. 3, 3263.
Rossi, L., 2014. Enhancing Phosphorus Removal by Disc Filtration- a Case Study from
Viikinm€aki Wastewater Treatment Plant (Master’s thesis). Aalto University, School
of chemical technology, Department of Biotechnology and Chemical Technology.
Retrieved from: https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/handle/123456789/14663?show=full.
Ryan, P.G., Moore, C.J., van Franeker, J.A., Moloney, C.L., 2009. Monitoring the
abundance of plastic debris in the marine environment. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond.
Ser. B. Biol. Sci. 364, 1999–2012.
Sarker, A., Deepo, M.D., Nandi, R., Rana, J., Islam, S., Rahman, S., Hossain, N.M.,
Islam, S.M., Baroi, A., Kim, E.J., 2020. A review of micro-plastics pollution in the soil
and terrestrial ecosystems: a global and Bangladesh perspective. Sci. Total Environ.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139296.
Sharma, S., Chatterjee, S., 2017. Micro-plastic pollution, a threat to marine ecosystem
and human health: a short review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 24, 21530–21547.
Shen, M., Yea, S., Zenga, G., Zhang, Y., et al., 2019. Can microplastics pose a threat to
ocean carbon sequestration? Mar. Pollut. Bull. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2019.110712.
Shen, M., Huang, W., Chen, M., Song, B., Zeng, G., Zhang, Y., 2020. (Micro) plastic crisis:
un-ignorable contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
J. Cleaner Prod. 254, 120138 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120138.
Sundt, P., Schulze, P.-E., Syversen, F., 2014. Sources of micro-plastic pollution to the
marine environment. Report no M-321/2015. Asker: Mepex Consult.
Sundbæk, K.B., Koch, I.D.W., Villaro, C.G., Rasmussen, N.S., Holdt, S.L., Hartmann, N.B.,
2018. Sorption of fluorescent polystyrene microplastic particles to edible seaweed
Fucus vesiculosus. J. Appl. Phycol. 30 (5), 2923–2927. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s1081 1-018-1472-8.
Sutton, R., Mason, S.A., Stanek, S.K., Willis-Norton, E., Wren, I.F., Box, C., 2016. Micro-
plastic contamination in the San Francisco Bay, California, USA. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
109, 230e235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.05.077.
Talvitie, J., Mikola, A., Koistinen, A., Setälä, O., 2017. Solutions to micro-plastic
pollution removal of micro-plastics from wastewater effluent with advanced
wastewater treatment technologies. Water Res. 123, 401–407. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.watre s.2017.07.005.
Thompson, R.C., Olsen, Y., Mitchell, R.P., 2004. Where is all the plastic? Science 304,
838.
Tiwari, M., Rathod, T.D., Ajmal, P.Y., Bhangare, R.C., Sahu, S.K., 2019. Distribution and
char- acterization of microplastics in beach sand from three different Indian coastal
environments. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 140, 262–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2019.01.055.
UNEP, 2005. Marine litter: an analytical overview. UNEP.
US EPA, 1993. Plastic pellets in the aquatic environment. Sources and recommendations.
Final report. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington DC.
Van Sebille, E., England, M.H., Froyland, G., 2012. Origin, dynamics and evolution of
ocean garbage patches from observed surface drifters. Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (4),
044040.
Veerasingam, S., Mugilarasan, M., Venkatachalapathy, R., 2016a. Influence of 2015
flood on the dis- tribution and occurrence of microplastic pellets along the Chennai
coast, India. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 109, 196–204.
A. Hasan Anik et al.
Veerasingam, S., Saha, M., Suneel, V., 2016b. Characteristics, seasonal distribution and
surface degradation features of microplastic pellets along the Goa coast, India.
Chemosphere 159, 496–505.
Watts, A.J., Moger, J., Tyler, C.R., Galloway, T.S., 2014. Uptake and retention of
microplastics by the shore crab Carcinus maenas Environ. Sci. Technol 48,
8823–8830.
Willis, K.A., Eriksen, R., Wilcox, C., 2017. Micro-plastic distribution at different sediment
depths in an urban estuary. Front. Mar. Sci. 4, 1–8.
Wong, H.K., Lee, K.K., Tang, D.H., Yap, S.P., 2020. Micro-plastics in the freshwater and
terrestrial environments: Prevalence, fates, impacts and sustainable solutions. Sci.
Total Environ. 719, 137512.
World Economic Forum (WEF), 2020. How face masks, gloves and other coronavirus
waste is polluting our ocean. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/ppe-m
asks-gloves-coronavirus-ocean-pollution. Accessed 22 June 2020.
World Health Organization. 2019. Micro-plastics in drinking-water. Water sanitation
hygiene 20 Aug. https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/micro
plastics-in-drinking-water/en. Accessed 30 March 2020.
Wu, P., Huang, J., Zheng, Y.P., Yang, Y., 2019. Environmental occurrences, fate, and
impacts of micro-plastics. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. www.elsevier.com/locate/
ecoenv.
Yang, J., Yang, Y., Wu, W.M., Zhao, J., Jiang, L., 2014. Evidence of polyethylene
biodegradation by bacterial strains from the guts of plastic-eating waxworms.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 13776–13784.
12
Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management 16 (2021) 100530
Yu, Q., Hu, X., Yang, B., Zhang, G., Wang, J., Ling, W., 2020. Distribution, abundance
and risks of micro-plastics in the environment. Chemosphere. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.126059.
Zhang, C., Chen, X., Wang, J., Tan, L., 2017. Toxic effects of micro-plastic on marine
microalgae Skeletonema costatum: interactions between microplastic and algae.
Environ. Pollut. 220, 1282–1288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.11.005.
Zhang, G.S., Liu, Y.F., 2018. The distribution of micro-plastics in soil aggregate fractions
in southwestern China. Sci. Total Environ. 642, 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2018.06.004.
Zhang, K., Shic, H., Peng, J., Wang, Y., Xiong, X., Wu, C., Lam, P.K., 2018. Micro-plastic
Pollution is China’s inland water systems: a review of findings, methods,
characteristics, effects, and management. Sci. Dire. 630, 1641–1653.
Zhang, S., Liu, X., Hao, X., Wang, J., Zhang, Y., 2020. Distribution of low-density micro-
plastics in the mollisol farmlands of northeast China. Sci. Total Environ. 708, 135091
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135091.
Zhang, Y., Liang, J., Zeng, G., et al., 2019. How climate change and eutrophication
interact with micro-plastic pollution and sediment resuspension in shallow lakes: a
review. Sci. Total Environ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135979.
Zhu, L., Bai, H., Chen, B., 2018. Micro-plastic pollution in North Yellow Sea, China:
Observations on occurrence, distribution and identification. Sci. Total Environ. 636,
20–29.
Zubris, K.A., Richards, B.K., 2005. Synthetic fibers as an indicator of land application of
sludge. Environ. Pollut. 138 (2), 201–211.