CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of Study

Over the past two decades, the hazards of plastic debris have gradually been recognized, with a
large amount of related research having been conducted recently. However, the definition of plastic
debris sizes is not uniform in the literature (Ryan et al., 2009). As depicted in Figure 1, plastic
debris is defined as macroplastics (>25 mm), microplastics (0.1 μm-5 mm), and nanoplastics (<100
nm). Additionally, microplastics (MPs) can be divided into primary and secondary MPs based on
their sources. Primary MPs are mainly micro-sized plastics that are intentionally produced by
grinding or extrusion (e.g., abrasives in cleaning products) (Browne, 2015). Secondary MPs
mainly come from the fragmentation of larger plastic items through physical, chemical, and
biological processes.

Figure 1 Classification of plastics based on sizes (Napper et al. 2015)

MPs can be transported in the wastewater through domestic or industrial drainage systems before
their eventual entry in freshwater and marine environments (Fendall and Sewell, 2009). MPs also

1
enter the marine environment via wind. MPs are commonly found in marine and freshwater
environments around the world, including beaches, seawater, marine sediments, surface water, and
lake or river sediments. In marine environments, MPs can be transported over great distances via
ocean currents. Their presence has been observed on sandy beaches along the shorelines of all
continents, in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Mediterranean waters, in polar regions, and even in deep-
sea sediments. The distribution and abundance of MPs in marine environments are affected by
numerous factors, including wind, currents, waves, etc. Furthermore, anthropogenic factors would
work together with environmental factors when approaching human activity areas. Wind and
currents were found to be the main drivers of the spatial distribution of MPs on coastal beaches,
and high abundance was mainly attributed to the large number of unrecycled plastic buoys that
came from the aquaculture industries in Korea. In freshwater systems, MPs are widely distributed
in the waters and sediments of rivers and lakes. In recent years, researchers have reported the
presence of MPs in freshwater systems in Asia, Europe, and North America. Factors that may
affect the distribution and abundance of MPs in freshwater systems include environmental (e.g.,
storms, wind), and anthropogenic (e.g., dam releases, anthropogenic emissions). Observations in
Lake Hovsgol, Mongolia, revealed a decrease in MPs from south to north, probably due to the lake
draining to the south and the direction of the prevailing wind. Densely populated areas were found
to have higher microplastic abundance, as high population densities resulted in higher urban runoff
loads and direct emissions.

Recently, the potential threats of MPs to living organisms have received considerable attention
due to their widespread presence in marine environments and freshwater systems. Laboratory
experiments have shown that many organisms, including zooplankton, fish, and invertebrate
larvae, ingest MPs (Lönnstedt and Eklöv, 2016). MPs ingested by organisms may cause
mechanical damage to the digestive system, such as clogging of the intestines or penetration of the
intestinal wall, thereby affecting food intake by the organisms. The ingestion of MPs has been
linked to reduced feeding activity in marine worms, leading to a decrease in their energy reserves.
Similarly, copepods have shown a significant reduction in food intake in the presence of MPs,
indicating negative impacts on zooplankton health. Additionally, the toxic effects of pollutants and
additives released from MPs cannot be ignored, as they have been found to transfer to the tissues
of organisms, impairing their ecophysiological functions. Microplastic ingestion has been
observed throughout the food chain, with the potential for MPs to move from one trophic level to

2
a higher one via zooplankton. Due to the persistent nature of MPs, there is a concern that they may
accumulate in higher concentrations in the next trophic level as they transfer through the food
chain. Sampling studies have detected MPs in fish and bivalves used for human consumption,
raising concerns about potential adverse impacts on human health.

In Nigeria, recent public awareness of the issue has prompted scholarly and social
accomplishments. The primary risks of MPs to ecosystems are their ubiquity and bioavailability
for ingestion, entanglement, or inhalation (Enyoh et al., 2019). There are multiple reports of their
ingestion by marine, soil organisms, and plants from polluted soils (Enyoh et al., 2020). They have
been found in table salts and potable water (Verla et al., 2019). The health implications of MPs
and nanoplastics may be physical by blocking the digestive system due to particle localization, a
chemical with associated toxic chemical effects, and biological involving toxins (Wang et al.,
2020). At the cellular and molecular levels, some studies have demonstrated that MPs or NPs can
induce reactive oxygen species (ROS) as well as inhibiting the efflux pump and mitochondria
depolarization (Enyoh et al., 2019). Furthermore, they can also affect several signaling pathways,
causing fibrosis, autophagy, and even DNA mutations (Enyoh et al., 2020). Therefore, there is a
need to reduce the amount or quantity of plastic waste emitted to safeguard environmental and
human health (Enyoh et al., 2019; Enyoh et al., 2020; Verla et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020).

Up to now, researchers from few universities and institutes have conducted microplastic research
in Nigeria that ranges from surface water, sediments and marine organisms of inland water
systems. Some of these researches were conducted in an institute located in another country due
to the lack of proper laboratory to conduct such studies in Nigeria. Currently, there are no national
projects supported by official government funds while funds for some studies have been obtained
from the international body such as the African Research Excellence Funds and German Academic
Exchange Service etc. The overarching goal of this seminar is to provide a comprehensive
understanding for attendees regarding the origins, environmental consequences, potential hazards,
mitigation approaches, and the future trajectory of microplastic pollution in Nigeria. By shedding
light on these aspects, it will raise awareness and empower individuals to contribute to the
sustainable management of this pressing environmental issue.

3
1.2 Aims and Objectives

The primary aim of this seminar is to provide a holistic understanding of microplastic pollution in
Nigeria, fostering responsibility and agency among participants. This goal will be achieved
through the following objectives:

➢ Explore and elucidate the sources of microplastics in Nigeria, encompassing both primary
and secondary MPs.

➢ Examine the impact of microplastics on diverse ecosystems, including marine and

freshwater environments. Assess the distribution and abundance of microplastics in
Nigeria.

➢ Investigate the potential threats posed by microplastics to living organisms in aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems, with a focus on health implications for wildlife and humans.

➢ Evaluate existing policies and propose sustainable solutions to mitigate microplastic

pollution, considering the unique challenges faced by Nigeria.

➢ Anticipate and discuss future trends and potential developments in microplastic pollution
in Nigeria, considering environmental, social, and economic factors.

This seminar aims not only to inform but also to inspire. By shedding light on the origins,
environmental consequences, potential hazards, mitigation approaches, and the future trajectory
of microplastic pollution in Nigeria, it seeks to heighten awareness and equip participants with the
knowledge needed to actively contribute to sustainable management practices. The seminar
encourages responsible behaviors and informed decision-making to address the pervasive issue of
microplastic pollution in Nigeria, emphasizing its significance in both local and global contexts.

4
 CHAPTER TWO

SOURCES OF MICROPLASTICS

Generally, microplastics (MPs) in the environment come from two main types of source, which
lead to different sizes of plastic particles: one is the primary source, and another is the secondary
source (Figure 2). However, it is not easy or even impossible to identify the exact source of MPs
detected in the environment. Primary sources of environmental MPs include plastic pellets,
personal care products containing microbeads, paint, washing wastewater, sewage sludge, plastic
running tracks in schools, artificial turf, rubber road in cities, and vehicle tire wear. Meanwhile,
secondary sources include municipal debris such as plastic bags and bottles, fishing wastes,
farming film, and other large size plastic wastes. Among these sources, vehicle tire wear is
regarded as one of the most important sources of environmental microplastic due to the rapid
global increase in the number of vehicles. However, available studies about the presence of rubber
particles in the environment are very scarce. It is estimated that secondary sources of MPs currently
account for the dominant of MPs in the environment although large plastic wastes need hundreds
of years to break down into MPs under natural conditions. The appropriate management of plastic
wastes and wastewater is the crucial step to prevent and control microplastic pollution in the
environment in the future.

Figure 2 Sources of microplastics (Lonnstedt et al. 2016)

5
2.1 Primary Source of microplastics

2.1.1 Plastic Pellets (Raw Materials)

Plastic pellets are granular plastics, commonly with a diameter of 2–5 mm and a regular shape
(Karlsson et al., 2018), which are used to make various plastic products. Generally, plastic pellets
are stored, transported, and processed in the form of semi-finished products. Plastic is mainly made
from petroleum and coal, which are used to produce ethylene, propylene, styrene, vinyl chloride,
and other materials. Plastics are divided into two groups, namely, thermoplastics and thermoset
plastics. Most thermoplastics are made of virgin plastic pellets, also called preproduction pellets,
beads, or nurdles. In most cases, these pellets are made during polymeric production or in recycling
facilities. Plastic particles are widely used in daily human life, including in household appliances,
the clothing industry, building materials, the chemical industry, and agriculture. They are also
widely used in the electrical industry, the telecommunications industry, automobile
manufacturing, and medical equipment. As a persistent material, plastic pellets are very slow to
degrade once they enter the environment. Additionally, due to their small particle size, they are
easily eaten by fish or birds and can be easily transmitted along the food chain, which eventually
endangers human health (Karlsson et al., 2018).

2.1.2 Personal Care Products

Microbeads are MPs that have been processed into tiny particles. Microbeads can be widely used
as a replacement for the synthetic pigments that are added to personal care products to achieve
cosmetic effects such as cleansing, whitening, and exfoliation, the removal of dead skin (Cole &
Sherrington, 2016). Microbeads used in personal care products and cosmetics are mainly divided
into two categories (Gouin et al., 2015): thermoplastics, which include polyethylene (PE),
polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), and thermoset plastics,
which include polyurethane (PU), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and polymethyl methacrylate
(PMMA). Polyethylene microbeads account for 93% of all microplastic beads (Lei et al., 2017).
A variety of personal care products and cosmetics contain microplastic beads, such as facial
cleansers, toothpaste, sunscreen, shower gel, and hair dye. Generally, microbeads enter the sewage
network along with washing wastewater due to their small size, insolubility in water, and slow

6
degradation. At present, sewage treatment equipment is unable to effectively remove plastic
microbeads. As a result, these microbeads enter the environment via sewage sludge, which is
widely used in agriculture (Cheung & Fok, 2017).

2.1.3 Paint

Paint is usually composed of pigments, fillers, solvents, and small amounts of functional additives.
Paints can be divided into architectural coatings, automotive coatings, aircraft coatings, and marine
coatings based on their usage, while they can be divided into natural resin paint, phenolic paint,
alkyd paint, amino paint, nitro paint, epoxy paint, chlorinated rubber paint, acrylic paint,
polyurethane paint, organic silicone paint, and silicone paint based on their film-forming material.
Various studies have shown that the application of a paint layer to a surface may form tiny particles
of plastic, which can then be released into the environment due to abrasion, aging, and erosion.
Therefore, painting is one of the primary sources of environmental microplastic. Paint-related
sources of environmental microplastic include architectural coatings (e.g., paint falling off during
the painting of buildings), marine coatings, automotive coatings, and road-marking paint (Wang
et al., 2019).

2.1.4 Washing Wastewater

Washing wastewater, including household laundry wastewater and washing plant wastewater,
releases large amounts of plastic microfibers into the environment; these fibers are derived from
shedding from various textiles. Importantly, synthetic fibers composed of polyesters and
polyamides are commonly released during the washing process. It has been estimated that more
than 1,900 microfibers are released to wastewater treatment plants by each piece of clothing during
one washing cycle. As for sewage treatment plants, MPs cannot be effectively removed in
wastewater treatment plants (Horton et al., 2017). Therefore, the plastic microfibers that are
released during the washing of clothes enter the environment with the discharging of effluent or
sludge. Some studies have shown that the plastic microfibers which are found in soil, rivers, and
oceans represent the majority of MPs in the environment (Francesca et al., 2019).

7
2.1.5 Vehicle Tire Wear

MPs released from tires by tire wear are considered to be one of the main sources of MPs in road
dust. The life of motor vehicle tires is divided into three stages: manufacturing, use, and disposal.
Of these three stages, the carbon emissions are the largest in the use stage. Tires can be divided
into natural rubber (NR) tires and synthetic rubber (SN) tires. Synthetic rubber is mainly composed
of SBR or butadiene rubber (BR). Natural rubber is commonly used in advanced automotive tires
due to the fact that its durability is better than that of synthetic rubber. At present, natural rubber
is mainly derived from the Brazilian rubber tree (Hevea brasiliensis). The production of rubber
from this tree is relatively expensive. Meanwhile, synthetic rubber is derived from the petroleum
industry. In order to meet the performance requirements of motor vehicle tires, manufacturers
generally add different types and different doses of chemical additives to rubber. In Norway and
Denmark, rubber tires have been shown to be one of the main sources of environmental MPs
(Verschoor et al., 2016). The density of rubber particles is about 1.2–1.3 g/cm3, and accordingly,
they can sink into sediment when they enter an aquatic environment. Rubber particles will float in
water only when washed by water (Falco et al., 2018). Rubber particles released from the tires of
motor vehicles on the road can be deposited in various environments, such as surface water,
sewers, soil, and air.

2.2 Secondary Source of MPs

Secondary sources of microplastic are tiny fragments of plastic derived from larger plastic particles
which have not been properly disposed of (Boucher & Friot, 2017). Over time, MPs are gradually
formed by the degradation of plastic structures under the action of physical, biological, and
chemical processes such as light irradiation aging, biological crushing, and mechanical grinding.
Secondary sources of microplastic are a significant source of environmental microplastic. Such
secondary sources include the following.

8
2.2.1 Plastic Bags

Plastic bags refer to bags made of various plastic raw materials mixed with other materials
(additives) which are processed by heat-sealing or bonding. Many different materials are used in
the manufacturing of plastic bags. They include PET, PE, high-density PE (HDPE), polyvinyl
chloride (PVC), low-density PE (LDPE), PP, EVA, PBA, Polybutylene Succinate (PBS),
polycaprolactone (PCL), polycthyle, and linear low-density PE (LLDPE). Plastic bags are
indispensable items in people’s daily lives. They are widely used due to their low cost, extremely
light weight, large capacity, and easy storage. Worldwide, up to 5 trillion plastic bags are used per
year. In the United States alone, 100 million plastic bags are used by consumers every year;
however, less than 10% of these will be recycled. Since the widespread commercial use of plastic
bags appeared in the 1990s, a large number of plastic bags have been disposed of in the
environment, including roads, river banks, and land around cities. Due to their extremely long
degradation cycle, the production and use of plastic bags are gradually being banned from
production in some countries. The range and scope of interventions for reducing the use of plastic
bags vary between countries; these include prohibiting the sale of lightweight bags, charging
customers for lightweight bags, and taxing stores who sell lightweight bags (Lithner et al., 2011).

2.2.2 Plastic Bottles

Plastic bottles are containers that are composed of plastic such as PET, PE, and PP. These bottles
are produced by combining the constituent plastic with a corresponding organic solvent or by
heating to a high temperature, after which a plastic mold is formed through blow molding,
extrusion blowing, or injection molding. Plastic bottles are mainly used as disposable containers
for liquids or solids, such as beverages, pickles, honey, dried fruit, edible oils, and agricultural
veterinary drugs. In some areas, plastics bags, and especially plastic bottles, are relied upon to
provide clean drinking water. Additionally, due to the convenience, hygiene, low cost, and
transparency of plastic bottles, most people choose to buy mineral water or other drinks which are
sold in plastic bottles. It has been estimated that one million plastic bottles are sold every minute
around the world at present; however, as of 2016, the number of plastic bottles that were properly
recycled was less than 50% of sales volume. Furthermore, in 2016, only 7% of the plastic bottles

9
that were sold were recycled and made into new bottles. Field research along the coast of China
showed that plastic bottles are the most common marine plastic waste in beaches such as Liaodong
Bay in Bohai Sea, Zhoushan in East Sea, and Haikou in the South Sea. Plastic bottles may,
therefore, be a potential source of MPs in the form of fragments or granules, both of which are
detected in large quantities in the environment (Geyer et al., 2017).

2.2.3 Fishing Wastes

Plastic fishing waste includes buoys, floating boxes, fishing rods, fish tanks, fishing nets, fishing
lines, cables, etc. The amount of commercial fishing equipment which is discarded globally each
year has been estimated at between 0.13 and 135,000 tons (Eriksen et al., 2014). Polystyrene foam
has been detected in large quantities in marine plastic waste, for example, in the Shandong Coast,
China (Su et al., 2016), and Hofsgar Lake, Mongolia. The presence of such waste is mainly due to
the large-scale use of Styrofoam floating devices in the aquaculture industry, which has developed
rapidly in recent years, and the large amount of abandoned fishing nets and foam pontoons that
are lost to the sea due to natural wear and biological damage after prolonged use. Additionally, the
abandonment of large quantities of feed junk bags by the aquaculture industry has also increased
the amount of plastics in the marine environment. Furthermore, increasing numbers of fishing
boats are using plastic fishing nets, and the renewal of fishing gear has resulted in a large number
of dilapidated plastic fishing nets abandoned in the ocean. After entering the environment, fishing
nets and ropes shed fibers. Additionally, maritime shipping accidents sometimes cause large
quantities of plastic products to enter the ocean. Therefore, fishing wastes, and especially foams,
are significant sources of MPs in the environment (Jambeck et al., 2015).

2.2.4 Others

In addition to the industries mentioned above, the construction, aerospace, and medical industries
also consume significant amounts of plastic. A large number of plastic products are used in the
following products: hinged covers, hub caps and other automobile parts, touch screens, pipes and
fittings, foundations, roofs, floors, panels, roads, insulation, cable jackets, window frames,
profiles, flooring, wall coverings, building insulation, valves, seals, and so on. Plastic products are

10
widely used outdoors due to their resistance to environmental factors; they neither rot nor rust and
require little maintenance. However, plastics can enter the solid waste stream. Plastic that has not
been disposed of properly enters the environment and thus becomes a potential source of
environmental microplastic pollution. The contribution of plastic products to environmental
microplastic pollution depends on the effectiveness of solid waste management (Dris et al., 2015).

11
 CHAPTER THREE

REPORTS ON MPs IN NIGERIA AND THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACTS

3.1 Reports

Only a few studies have been done on the distribution and abundance of microplastics in Nigerian
environments (Figure 3). These studies were recently carried out from 2019 to the present and are
thus reviewed below. There is a general need for more studies on microplastics in Nigeria. The
country contains an estimated 10,812,400 hectares of the major inland water system, which make
up about 11.5% of the total surface area of Nigeria (Abiodun et al., 2019). Less than 1% of this is
currently studied.

Figure 3 Microplastic reports in Nigeria

12
3.1.1 Surface water

More studies on microplastics in Nigeria have been conducted on surface water. Enyoh et al.
(2019) reported the presence of microplastics which ranged from 440 to 1,556 particles/L with
high abundance downstream from rivers Obiaraedu, Nwangele, Okumpi, Ogbajarajara, and
Onuezuze in South Eastern Nigeria. Fragment, fiber, and film plastic shapes were identified in the
surface water of these rivers, with the fragment shape having the highest occurrence. The
distribution of the plastics was as follows: polyethylene terephthalate (PET) – 29%, polyethylene
(PE) – 22%, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) – 16%, polypropylene (PP) – 14%, others – 6%. The major
sources of these MPs were from caps and lids, lolly sticks, cutlery, cups, drink bottles, straws,
packaging for food, bags + nylon (including sachet water nylon) + sacs, toys, cigarette lighter,
cigarette filter, syringes, mussel bags + pieces, cotton bud sticks, fishing ropes, string, cord,
cosmetics packaging, fishing net floats, foam (pieces), plastic pieces (unrecognizable), jerry cans,
masking tape, condoms + packaging, packaging for biscuits, packaging for soap, panty liners +
packaging, construction waste, cigarette box, buckets, flower pots, and pen. Abiodun et al. (2019)
reported a high occurrence of micropellet particles at 67% in the Lagos lagoon; the micropellet
particles extracted from this surface water were reported to be contaminated with PAHs and PCBs.
Large amounts of microplastics were observed to be present in Elechi Creek, Rivers state, Nigeria,
through the study carried out (Briggs et al., 2019), which gave a microplastic percentage recovery
rate of 82% in this area. Olarinmoye (2020) identified microplastics within the range of 139–303
particles/m³ in surface water samples from a lagoon bordering the urban agglomeration of Lagos,
Southwest Nigeria. Fibers, fragments, and a few film plastic shapes were observed to be present
in the water samples in the order fibers > fragments > films. Oni (2020) investigated the occurrence
and distribution of (MPs) for two seasons (dry and rainy) based on 10 sections of OX-Bow Lake
Yenagoa, Nigeria. MPs were abundant in color and dominated by fibrous items. In the dry season,
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and Plasticised polyvinylchloride (Plasticised PVC) were
predominant, accounting for 72.63% of the MPs found in the samples, while in the rainy season,
PVC with 81.5% was predominant. Beads and pellets were the most common MP shapes, and the
sources of the MPs were from a soft drink and water bottle, plastics container, supermarket bag,
plastics fork, coffee cup lid, electric cables, face wash, chewing gum box, photographic film, and
window frame. Overall, their results generally showed that there is a high presence of MPs in
surface water from the Lake.

13
3.1.2 Sediment

Ilechukwu (2019) reported the presence of microplastics in the surface sediments from four
beaches (Eleko, Lekki, Alpha, and Oniru) in Lagos state, Nigeria. Samples from Eleko, Lekki,
Alpha, and Oniru surface sediments were reported to contain 170 ± 21, 141 ± 36, 133 ± 16, and
121 ± 38 microplastic items, respectively. Fragments, as well as polymers such as polystyrene
(PS), polypropylene (PP), and polyethylene (PE), were identified to be present in the surface
sediment samples of these beaches. Microplastics in the range of 310 to 2319 particles/kg were
recorded in sediment samples from a lagoon bordering the urban agglomeration of Lagos,
Southwest Nigeria. Fibers with an abundance of 32.5% in the sediments were observed to be the
most prevalent, followed by fragments and very few films. Micropellet particles at 33% were
reported by (Abiodun et al. 2019) in the Lagos lagoon sediments; these micropellet particles from
the lagoon sediment were seen to be contaminated with PAHs and PCBs. In OX-Bow Lake
Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, Nigeria, Oni (2020) reported PET and PVC as the predominant MPs,
accounting for 10.9% in sediment samples in the dry season while low-density polyethylene
(4.2%) was predominant in the rainy season.

3.1.3 Biota

Two gastropods, namely, Melanoidestuberculata and Lanistesvaricus from the Osun River
system, were analyzed for the presence of microplastics. The microplastic shape, fiber, was
identified in M. tuberculata, while fiber and film were observed to be present in L. varicus. The
microplastic films were reported to be composed of polyethylene (Akindele et al., 2019). Adeogun
(2020) reported the presence of microplastics within the range of 124 μm and 1.53 mm in size in
the stomach of seven fish species from Eleyele lake in southwestern Nigeria. These fish species
include: Oreochromisniloticus, Coptodonzillii, Sarotheronmelanotheron,
Chrysicthysnigrodigitatus, Paranchannaobscura, Hepsetusodoe, and Latesniloticus. The
percentage abundance of microplastics in these fish species was as follows: O. niloticus – 34%; C.
zillii – 32%; S. melanotheron – 13%; C. nigrodigitatus – 6%; while 5% was recorded in P. obscura;
H. odoe, and L. niloticus. The stomach of S. melanotheron contained the highest number of
microplastics (34 microplastics). Microplastics were recorded in the collector-gatherers,

14
Chironomus sp., Siphlonurus sp., and Lestes viridis from the two tributaries of the Gulf of Guinea
(Ogun and Osun Rivers) in Nigeria. The polymers, namely: styrene, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene
(ABS), polypropylene (PP), polyester, ethylene butylene styrene, and chlorinated polyethylene
were present in Chironomus sp from the Ogun River, Siphlonurus sp. from Osun river contained
ABS (Verla et al., 2019).

3.2 Environmental Impacts

3.2.1 Effects of MPS in aquatic habitats

MPs’ pollution is ubiquitous in aquatic (marine and freshwater), terrestrial, and atmospheric
environmental compartments, which are interconnected via diverse networks of source–pathway–
sink connections that can influence MPs’ flux and retention (Bergmann et al., 2019; Zhang et al.,
2020d). However, most of the studies done in the last decade have primarily concentrated on
aquatic habitats for MPs in comparison with land and the atmosphere. MPs debris in water bodies
is composed mainly of different types of plastics, including polyethylene (PE), polypropylene
(PP), polystyrene (PS), and polyvinyl chloride, which interact with organic matter, inorganic
elements, and microorganisms in aquatic habitats (Mammo et al., 2020). In addition, several
studies have also demonstrated that MPs could adsorb various toxic chemicals. Thus, it is now
widely accepted that MPs can act as a magnet for toxic chemicals in the environment and transport
them within and between different habitats (Wu et al., 2019; Yuan et al., 2020). Ultimately, the
MPs could be consumed by diverse marine species, thereby slowly entering the marine food web
and posing severe threats to all marine and terrestrial life (Al-Thawadi, 2020). The detrimental
effect of MPs on aquatic life, including microbes and invertebrates such as zooplankton, as well
as vertebrates such as fish, seabirds, and amphibians (Figure 4), has been the focus of many studies
(Frydkjær et al., 2017; Sana et al., 2020).

15
Figure 4 Some influential mechanisms of microplastics on marine organisms (Cole and Sherrington
2016)

MPs have been reported to inhibit the growth of microorganisms such as certain yeast, bacteria,
and algae, thus affecting their important fundamental roles in different environments (Nomura
et al., 2016; Sun et al., 2018; Mammo et al., 2020). Furthermore, MPs have been observed to
obstruct the digestive systems in zooplanktons and marine benthic organisms such as mussels and
oysters, causing decreased appetite, malnutrition, and deaths in many cases (Lee et al., 2013; Van
Cauwenberghe et al., 2013). MPs also pose an additional risk to human health as they are ingested
by a variety of aquatic organisms, both freshwater and marine, and thus can accumulate through
the food web (Sana et al., 2020). In this regard, it has been suggested that specific bioindicator
organisms be chosen as sentinel species to biomonitor the impact of MPs in various geographical
niches, thereby ensuring the safety of aquatic food products. For example, the lugworm (Arenicola
marina), a robust deposit feeder at the base of the benthic food web, is commonly used in marine
sediment toxicity tests (Besseling et al., 2017), while the mussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis) is an
internationally recognized sentinel species for monitoring marine pollution (Al-Thawadi, 2020).

16
3.2.2 Effects of MPS in terrestrial habitats

MPs’ pollution is a major contributor to one of the most pervasive and long-term anthropogenic
changes transpired to the earth’s terrestrial habitat (Figure 5).

Figure 5 Effects of microplastics on terrestrial organisms (Karlsson et al. 2018)

17
Consequently, overwhelming evidence of direct and indirect deleterious effects of MPs’ pollution
on various terrestrial habitats has emerged in recent years (Ambrosini et al., 2019; Zhang et al.,
2020a; Chen et al., 2020b; Yakushev et al., 2021). It is important to note that majority of the plastic
wastes that end up in water bodies were initially produced, used, and indiscriminately discarded
on land (de Souza Machado et al., 2018). Therefore, terrestrial habitats are considered huge MPs’
reservoirs, which could provide multiple exposure pathways to the biota in terrestrial systems,
potentially altering the geochemistry, resulting in environmental toxicity (Allouzi et al., 2021).
Thus, much focus has been given to the routine analysis of terrestrial samples, specifically soil
samples, for the presence of MPs. The damaging effects of accumulated MPs on the soil systems
are unquantifiable; they interact with other potentially harmful elements and organic contaminants,
multiplying their potential and thus severely affecting the various terrestrial biota (Chai et al.,
2020). Specifically, MPs that could persist for hundreds of years have been noted to interact with
organic matter in the soil, affecting soil physiochemical parameters and polluting groundwater,
consequently reducing plant growth and overall productivity (Wahl et al., 2021). In addition, MPs
also have significant negative impacts on soil fauna, especially earthworms and nematodes,
affecting their growth, reproduction, lifespan, and survival through various toxicity mechanisms,
including bioaccumulation, DNA damage, genotoxicity, gut microbiota dysbiosis,
histopathological damage, metabolic disorders, neurotoxicity, oxidative stress, and reproductive
toxicity. This will impact negatively on the natural ecological activities of these organisms, such
as litter decomposition, nutrient cycling and energy flow, posing various potential environmental
and health hazards (Wang et al., 2020). Furthermore, due to their high surface area-to-volume ratio
and hydrophobicity, MPs might act as transporters of pathogens and organic pollutants on land,
similar to previously highlighted in aquatic habitats (Atugoda et al., 2021). Also, microorganisms
attached to MPs represent a threat to the environment by acting as a conduit for MPs to
be transferred from the soil to plants and, eventually, to other living beings via the food chain (Chai
et al., 2020).

3.2.3 Effects of MPS in the atmosphere

Recent research has identified the atmosphere as a major reservoir and source of MPs’
contamination as they have lately been identified in the atmosphere of urban, suburban, and rural

18
areas. It has been observed that airborne MPs can travel long distances from MPs source regions
and accumulate in a variety of terrestrial and aquatic environmental matrices, posing various
threats to the biosphere (Mbachu et al., 2020). However, the fate of MPs is determined by the
connectivity of environmental compartments, and the atmosphere is the least investigated of all
the environmental compartments in terms of MPs occurrence and spatial distribution
(GonzálezPleiter et al., 2021). Unlike microplastics in other ecosystems, microplastics in the air
can be inhaled directly and continuously, posing a serious health concern. As a result, a greater
understanding of the concentration, source, and risks of MPs in the environment is critical (Chen
et al., 2020). Epidemiological studies have connected MPs air pollution to severe respiratory and
cardiovascular repercussions (Zhang et al., 2020). As was previously noted, the atmospheric
transportation of MPs is a component of the dynamic cycle of MPs in the environment, based on
their exchange across the atmosphere, terrestrial, and aquatic ecosystems (Chen et al., 2020).
Furthermore, atmospheric transport is regarded to be an important pathway in the source–sink
dynamics of plastic pollution in different ecosystems (Zhang et al., 2019. Although a significant
deposition of plastic particles in theoceans has been ascribed to riverine and coastal discharge
(Meijer et al., 2021), the pathway of MPs transport from the terrestrial ecosystems to the marine
environment and vice versa could be partly attributed to the atmospheric distribution (Liu et al.,
2019c). The transfer pathway of MPs from the atmosphere to man and its effects is depicted in
Fig 6.

Figure 6 Transfer pathway of MPs from the atmosphere to man and its effects (Wang et al. 2019)

19
3.2.4 Toxicological effects of MPs on human health

The processes leading to the formation of MPs have been highlighted to alter the physicochemical
properties of the minute particles such that their conductivity, particle size, reactivity, surface area,
and strength differ significantly from their parent materials (Mattsson et al., 2015; Gonçalves and
Bebianno, 2021). Although there is still more to be learnt about the eventual fates of MPs in
various biological systems, especially in humans, it has, however, been noted that the biological
reactivities of plastic particles like most other materials increase with decreasing particle size and
surface area (Ferreira et al., 2019). As highlighted in the previous sections, MPs have been
demonstrated to affect different life forms across various ecosystems. However, it is important to
highlight the potential effects of MPs on humans, being at the top of many food chains.
Furthermore, most plastics materials are often supplemented with additives to enhance their
properties, such additives include plasticizers, coloring agents, as well as flameretardation and
UV-resistance chemicals (Kitahara and Nakata, 2020). These additives are also of small molecular
size, similar to the MPs. In addition, they are not chemically attached to the polymeric materials,
increasing their likelihood of leaching into the surrounding environment and being transported
through different food chains (Luo et al., 2020).

It has been demonstrated severally that smaller nanoplastics have a higher probability of gaining
entrance and accumulating in different cells and tissues and subsequently affect the physiological
activities of the cells and tissues (Figure 7) In this regard, different in vivo and ex vivo studies
have demonstrated these aforementioned phenomena and also went further to explain the factors
that might amplify or diminish the toxic effects of MPs on living cells (Campanale et al., 2020).
The effects of the size of MPs on their entry into living systems have been demonstrated previously
by Forte et al. (2016). The studies showed that the rate of cellular assimilation of polystyrene
nanoplastics was inversely proportional to the size of the particles. In this regard, the MPs sized
44 nm had higher uptake and toxic effects on the cell lines compared to 100-nm polystyrene MPs
(Forte et al., 2016). Furthermore, the unmodified plastic polymers were shown in vitro to
specifically affect cell viability, inflammatory gene expression, and cell morphology of gastric cell
lines (Forte et al., 2016). It has also been shown that the introduction of positive or negative
charges to MPs enhances their assimilation and toxicity to different cells. For instance, cationic
polystyrene nanoplastics (60 nm) were shown to be uptaken by different cell lines including

20
macrophage (RAW 264.7) and epithelial (BEAS-2B) cells inducing significant damages in the
process highlighted.

Figure 7 Microplastics in the human body (Horton et al. 2017)

Results from a study by Bhattacharjee et al. (2014) also corroborated those shown previously by
Xia et al. (2008) as cationic nanoparticles demonstrated higher toxicity than anionic ones in both
studies. It could also be inferred from these studies that the toxic effects of MPs on the cellular
environment might result from induced oxidative stress, which leads to a cascade of undesirable
cellular activities and eventual damage (Bhattacharjee et al., 2014; Guo et al., 2020). Hence, it is
believed that MPs can be accumulated in cells and tissues causing metabolic disorders and local

21
inflammation (Hu and Palić, 2020). In this regard, the uptake, as well as cytotoxic effects of MPs,
has been demonstrated on various human cells lines including lung cells (An et al., 2020),
intestinal cells (Stock et al., 2019), as well as cerebral and epithelial cells (Schirinzi et al., 2017).

The appearance of MPs in humans and other higher organisms through different food chains has
been a subject of intense scientific concern. Although there are yet to be conclusive data to
establish the assimilation and metabolism of MPs in the human body, different entry routes and
mechanism of assimilation have been proposed as depicted in Figure 8.

Figure 8 One possible entry of contaminants [e.g., polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)] and
microplastics in the human body through the food chain (Akindele et al. 2020)

Alternative routes by which MPs can be absorbed by humans, besides the food chain, have also
been identified to include animal feeds (Karbalaei et al., 2020) and consumption of sea salt
(Gündoğdu, 2018). Lately, a lot of scientific and public attention has been drawn toward the
probability of the direct ingestion of MPs, especially polyethylene terephthalate, polystyrene, and
polypropylene MPs (Lam et al., 2020; Senathirajah et al., 2021). For example, a most recent study
has shown the presence of MPs in approximately 80% of all the water bottle brands investigated
(Makhdoumi et al., 2021). It was previously estimated that individuals who consume bottled water
might be ingesting an additional 90,000microplastics annually, compared to 4,000 microplastics
for individuals who rely totally on tap water (Cox et al., 2020). Additionally, the study has also
shown that the direct ingestion of MPs by humans might also be possible via the consumption of
alcohol, sugar, as well as tap water, as different levels of MPs were discovered in these samples
(Cox et al., 2020). Similar studies have also shown the presence of MPs in beer, honey, milk, and
some other beverages (Diaz-Basantes et al., 2020; Edo et al., 2021). However, the authors posited
that the introduction of MPs into these beverages is via the environment; for instance, many of
these products are made using municipal water (Diaz-Basantes et al., 2020; Edo et al., 2021). They

22
also added that the MPs might have been transported by the bees into the hive or introduced by
humans during honey processing. The absorption of MPs in mammals has been highlighted in
different studies by estimating their bioavailability (Jani et al., 1990; Hillery et al., 1994). The oral
bioavailability of polystyrene MPs in rat mammalian models was estimated at 7%, while
approximately 4% bioavailability was recorded in the blood, bone marrow, liver, and spleen (Jani
et al., 1990). Higher bioavailability of the polystyrene MPs (~10%) has also been recorded in the
study by Hillery et al. (1994). The different bioavailability observed with the same MPs in the two
different studies has been ascribed to factors such as ageing time and surface modification (Shen
et al., 2019). The effects of these factors have since been affirmed in subsequent studies (Kulkarni
and Feng, 2013; Walczak et al., 2015). Recently, polystyrene MPs were shown to cause cardiac
fibrosis in rats by activating the Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway and triggering cardiomyocyte
apoptosis (Li et al., 2020c). Similarly, polystyrene MPs were also demonstrated to induce blood–
testis barrier disruption regulated by the MAPK–Nrf2 signaling pathway in rat models (Li et al.,
2021). Even though humans have been exposed to MPs from personal care products, especially
skin cosmetics, there are currently no studies to demonstrate the dermal bioavailability of these
particles. In this regard, Hwang et al. (2020) posited that human intake of MPs from microbeads
in personal care products could occur through skin absorption; however, their study could not
substantiate this claim with any scientific experimentation, neither in animal models nor in cell
lines.

It is also believed that the large surface areas and complex surface structures of MPs, like other
nanoparticles in general, would enhance their interaction with various cellular compounds
including ions, lipids, proteins, and water (Chain, 2016). Hence, different MPs have been shown
to interfere with lipids metabolism and transportation in various organisms (Lu et al., 2018; Guo
et al., 2020). Recently, MPs have also been demonstrated to distort the structural integrity of
proteins by changing the secondary structures (Hollóczki and Gehrke, 2019) and inducing protein
misfolding (Hollóczki, 2021). Furthermore, proteins–nanoparticles interactions have also been
shown to generate coronal protein rings (Gopinath et al., 2019), which significantly affect the
endocytosis of nanoparticles in cells (Yee et al., 2021). The interaction of MPs and metallic ions
like iron ions has also been suggested to promote increased ion uptake, thus affecting the integrity
and function of the membrane (Mahler et al., 2012). MPs may also directly or indirectly impact
human health by acting as vectors of environmental contaminants (Hartmann et al., 2017). The

23
general nonpolar surfaces of MPs, like their parent plastic polymer materials, mean that they can
absorb and consequently transport other hydrophobic compounds, particularly persistent organic
pollutants (POPs; Mattsson et al., 2018). However, it was shown that MPs mostly act more as
passive samplers instead of vectors for POPs even though the chemical transfer may still occur
(Herzke et al., 2016).

24
 CHAPTER FOUR

EXISTING POLICIES AND SOLUTIONS TO PLASTIC POLLUTION

4.1 Existing policy frameworks related to microplastics

Several global-level instruments and multigovernmental agreements exist that are relevant to
marine plastics litter and microplastics, but none of the existing frameworks is specifically
designed to prevent increasing amounts of plastic pollution and microplastics entering the
environment nor to remove already existing plastics from the environment. Global legally-binding
instruments such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), the Basel
Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal
(Basel Convention) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) all have relevant elements
in terms of preventing plastics litter appearing in the environment and hence are also relevant in
reducing secondary microplastics. In addition, several initiatives and organizations such as United
Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), United Nations Environment Assembly
(UNEA), International Maritime Organization (IMO), United Nations Food and Agricultural
Organization (FAO), G7 and others address the issue through different mechanisms such as action
plans, decisions and other instruments.

At Baltic Sea-level, the most important regulatory instrument is the HELCOM Action Plan on
Marine Litter that contains, among others, regional actions related to microplastics that are being
regularly followed-up. European Union also has a wide range of instruments that target the issue
of marine plastics litter and microplastics directly and indirectly, including several Directives and
Strategies such as the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), the Waste Directive, the
Single-Use Plastics Directive (SUP) and the Directive on Port Reception Facilities as well as
Circular Economy package including its Plastics Strategy. At national level, Sweden is the only
FanpLESStic-sea project country that has a ban concerning microplastics in cosmetics products in
place (July 2018), but other countries are planning similar actions. In addition, several countries
have developed different guidelines and strategies to prevent primary and secondary microplastics
emissions to the marine environment, for example from waste- and stormwater or from artificial
turfs. Current advanced wastewater treatment plants remove up to 95-99% of the microplastics

25
and fibers even though they are not specifically designed for this purpose. However, due to the
large volumes of treated water constantly, they are still releasing considerable amounts of
microplastics and fibers to environment and waterbodies directly and or in sludge.

Quick snapshot to the most relevant existing global, regional and EU-level instruments that address
the issue of marine plastic litter and microplastics is provided in Figure 9 and Table 1 below:

Figure 9 International organizations that have relevance to marine litter and microplastics (Niu et al.
2021)

Table 1 International frameworks and instruments with relevance to marine litter and microplastics
(Vuola 2019)
Instrument Relevance to marine litter and microplastics
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea UNCLOS is the only global instrument that
(UNCLOS imposes a legally binding obligation upon States
for the prevention, reduction and control of land-
based sources of pollution through its Article 207,
which is also the most relevant UNCLOS
obligation in terms of preventing marine litter and
microplastics.
Annex V of the International Convention for the MARPOL is the principal convention of the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships (“MARPOL”) International Maritime Organization (IMO), the
United Nations specialized agency, to address ship-
based sources of pollution from international
shipping. The most relevant regulations to marine
plastic litter and microplastics are covered in its

26

The Convention on the Prevention of Marine
Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter
1972 (London Convention) and its 1996 Protocol
(the London Protocol)
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory
Species of Wild Animals (CMS)
United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA)
The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
Pollutants (Stockholm Convention)
27
Annex V, which prohibits the discharge of all types
of garbage into the sea from ships (with few
exceptions such as food waste that are not harmful
to the marine environment).
Under the London Protocol there is a general
prohibition on the dumping of any waste or other
matter at sea, including plastics. The objective of
the London Convention and Protocol is to promote
the effective control of all sources of marine
pollution encouraging countries to take effective
measures to prevent pollution of the marine
environment caused by dumping at sea.
Even though the convention does not directly
address pollution of the marine environment since
it principally applies to the conservation of
biological diversity, it has adopted a resolution
(CBD/COP/DEC/XIII/10) to address impacts of
marine debris and anthropogenic underwater noise
on marine and coastal biodiversity. The decision
also has specific part and priority actions related to
microplastics.
The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory
Species of Wild Animals (CMS) applies to
migratory species, but during the recent years, the
Convention has put more emphasis on marine litter
and the Parties have adopted two resolutions
(Res.10.4 and Res.11.30), that encourage or
recommend specific measures for Parties to
address knowledge gaps relating to the impacts of
debris on marine species, implement best practices
on commercial vessels, and organize awareness
campaigns.
The Agreement for the Implementation of the
Provisions of the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating
to the Conservation and Management of Straddling
Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks
(United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement/ UNFSA)
is mainly concerned with the conservation and
management of straddling fish stocks and highly
migratory fish stocks, but it also includes
obligations for States to minimize pollution, waste,
discards, and catch by lost or abandoned gear
(article 5(f)). In addition, in the Article 18 (3d), the
agreement touches upon the issue of marking of
fishing gear.
The application of the Stockholm Convention is
limited to those plastics produced with POPs listed
under the Convention and may have implications

The Basel Convention on the Control of The Basel Convention provides maybe the most
Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes comprehensive approach to the issue of marine
and Their Disposal (Basel Convention)
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development – Resolution 70/11 and the UN Agenda 2030 for
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA)
G7 Action Plan on Marine Litter
for the recycling and reuse of products that contain
regulated chemicals.
plastics litter and microplastics globally since the
provisions of the Convention with respect to waste
minimization, the environmentally sound
management of wastes generated, and the
transboundary movement apply to plastic wastes.
In 2017 the Convention decided to further address
marine plastic litter and microplastics. In 2019,
Governments amended the Basel Convention to
include plastic waste in a legally-binding
framework which will make global trade in plastic
waste more transparent and better regulated, whilst
also ensuring that its management is safer for
human health and the environment. A new
Partnership on Plastic Waste was also established
to mobilize business, government, academic and
civil society resources, interests and expertise to
assist in implementing the new measures.
Sustainable Development was adopted in 2015 by
the United Nations General Assembly with 17
sustainable development goals (SDG), including
SDG 14 to conserve and sustainably use the
oceans, seas and marine resources. Each SDG
includes targets and under the 10 targets for the
implementation of SDG 14 (“Life below water”),
target 14.1 specifically aims to prevent and
significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds,
in particular from land-based activities, including
marine litter and nutrient pollution
The United Nations Environment Assembly
(UNEA), often referred to as the world’s
highestlevel decision-making body on the
environment, addresses the critical environmental
challenges facing the world today. From the very
first Environment Assembly (UNEA-1), the issue
of marine litter and microplastics has been on its
agenda and to date, the Environment Assembly has
adopted four resolutions on marine plastic litter and
microplastics2 and several other related
resolutions. It’s worth mentioning that the
resolutions also have specific recommendations
related to microplastics.
In 2015, the G7 countries formally agreed on the
Action Plan on marine litter that recognizes the
social, economic and environmental impacts of the
problem. The G7 action plan also highlights the
28

FAO – Marking of Fishing Gear
role of the Regional Seas Conventions (such as
HELCOM and OSPAR) and the importance of a
stronger collaboration between these Conventions
and the Fisheries management bodies in the context
of wider global initiatives on fishery management.
This collaboration is essential since the
“abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing
gear” (ALDFG or ghost fishing gear) is one of the
major sources of marine pollution and poses a
direct threat to marine life and biodiversity
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO) considers the issue of
marine litter and microplastics from the
perspectives of i) reducing marine litter that
originates from the fishing industry, in particular
abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear
(ALDFG); ii) assessing the ecological impact of
microplastics on fisheries resources and
aquaculture products; and; iv) assessing food
safety risks from marine litter, in particular
microplastics, on human health. In 2018 the
Committee on Fisheries (COFI33), endorsed
FAO’s Voluntary Guidelines for the Marking of
Fishing Gear (VGMFG)3 that include not only a
framework for undertaking risk assessment to
identify the appropriateness or otherwise of
implementing a system for marking fishing gear,
but also provisions related to associated measures
such as retrieval of lost gear, reporting of ALDFG
and disposal of endof-life gear. The VGMFGs are
an important tool in preventing and reducing
ALDFG and ghostfishing, and in combatting
illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUUF).
The VGMFG compliment FAO’s Code of Conduct
for Responsible Fisheries.

4.2 Solutions to Plastic Pollution

4.2.1 What Are We Trying to Solve?

Investigating the different conceptions of the causes of plastic pollution offers a meaningful way
to organize the sets of solutions we have at hand. Importantly, that is not to say that one of the
views is true or false but rather to understand why different actors prefer and promote divergent
sets of solutions. To start with a commonality, the concerns about the impacts of plastic pollution
on nature, human health, and societies are the drivers of all problem-solution frames. However,

29
five different lenses can be used to focus on the problem formulation rendering plastic pollution a
waste, resource, economic, societal, and systemic problem (Figure 10).

Figure 10 Common drivers result in a diverse framing of the problem of plastic pollution and its causes.
This determines the set of preferred solutions (Mintenig et al. 2019)

Importantly, the lack of awareness about these frames can obscure the debate on plastic pollution.
For instance, plastics are often used as a proxy to debate other societal issues, such as
consumerism. Thus, seemingly scientific controversies become an arena to negotiate political and
philosophical issues (Hicks 2017). This is problematic for two reasons. Firstly, scientific debates
make a poor proxy for talking about value-laden problems because they are often technical and
narrow and, therefore, exclude “nonexpert” opinions and economic and cultural aspects. Secondly,
as Hicks puts it “talking exclusively about the science leads us to ignore – and hence fail to
address – the deeper disagreement” (Hicks 2017). To make the debate on plastic pollution
productive, all involved actors should transparently delineate how they frame the problem, be open
to discuss the deeper disagreements that may be beyond the traditional scope of hard sciences, and
be receptive to other arguments and viewpoints (e.g., the cultural value of an unpolluted nature).

30
4.2.2 Solving the Waste Problem

The most common approach to plastic pollution is to frame it as a waste problem. From that
perspective, the main cause is our inability to effectively manage the plastic waste and prevent its
emissions to nature. According to this view, plastic pollution basically becomes an engineering
problem that can be fixed with a set of technological solutions.

While not preventive per se, cleanup activities on beaches, rivers, in the open ocean, etc. can be
considered part of the set of solutions to the waste problem. Targeted at removing plastic debris
from nature, these can range from low-tech solutions involving citizens simply cleaning up
polluted places (e.g., organized by Ocean Conservancy, the Nordic Coastal Cleanup, or Fishing
for Litter), to medium- tech solutions that collect debris before it enters the oceans (e.g., Mr. Trash
Wheel, the Great Bubble Barrier), to high-tech solutions such as the large booms deployed by the
Ocean Cleanup or remotely operated underwater vehicles (see Schmaltz et al. 2020 for a
comprehensive inventory). Cleanup solutions can be criticized as ineffective and inefficient
basically because they represent measures that are the furthest downstream of the sources of plastic
pollution. Some technological approaches, such as the Ocean Cleanup booms, might even have
negative consequences on marine biota (Clarke 2015). However, these activities may also have
benefits that go beyond removing plastics from nature. Engaging volunteers in cleanup activities
can increase their awareness of pollution and promote pro- environmental intentions (Wyles et al.
2017, 2019) that may result in a more sustainable change in behaviors.

Improving waste management is at the center of the set of solutions associated with the framing
as waste problem. The goal of these activities is to minimize the amount of mismanaged plastic
waste “escaping” to nature. The waste management sector in the Global North faces serious
challenges, such as infrastructural fragmentation, lack of capacity, and the inability to deal with
increasingly complex plastics materials and waste streams (Crippa et al. 2019). Taking the
European Union as an example, there is a need to better implement and enforce existing waste
legislation, harmonize waste collection, and promote innovation regarding new business models
and waste sorting technologies (Crippa et al. 2019). However, most of the worlds’ mismanaged
plastic waste is emitted in the Global South (Jambeck et al. 2015) with its predominantly informal
waste sector where autonomous and organized waste pickers are highly skilled participants in local
circular economies. Reconciling their livelihoods with aspirations for industrial automation

31
remains a challenge, and external intervention attempts will likely be unsuccessful without
sufficient local capacity building (Velis 2017). The Global North can support such development
by sourcing recycled plastics from the informal recycling sector, thereby gradually formalizing
this sector (Crippa et al. 2019) and creating socioeconomic benefits for waste pickers (Gall et al.
2020).

Another dimension to look at plastic pollution is the global trade of plastic waste. More than half
of the plastic waste intended for recycling has been exported to countries other than the ones
producing the waste (Brooks et al. 2018). In the case of the European Union, most exports have
been directed toward the Global South (Rosa 2018) with notable shifts since China restricted waste
imports in 2017 (European Environment Agency 2019). The concerns over this practice arise from
the fact that recipient countries often have low labor and environmental standards resulting in
occupational risks and improper waste disposal or recycling (World Economic Forum 2020). In
response, the 187 member countries amended the Basel Convention, an international treaty on the
transboundary movement of hazardous wastes, to better control the global flows of contaminated,
mixed, or unrecyclable plastics (Secretariat of the Basel Convention 2019). While this is
promising, the Basel Convention is limited regarding its ability to enforce compliance and monitor
progress (Raubenheimer and McIlgorm 2018).

A third approach to tackle the waste problem is to increase the production and use of compostable
or biodegradable plastics. The expectation is that such materials will disintegrate on short time
scales either in industrial and household settings or in the environment (Crippa et al. 2019;
Lambert and Wagner 2017). Compostable and biodegradable plastics would, thus, contribute to
decreasing the amount of persistent plastic waste and create biomass to amend soils. While a range
of biodegradable plastics from fossil as well as renewable feedstocks is available, their market
share remains low, making up less than 0.5% of the global plastic production (Crippa et al. 2019).
This is mainly due to their high costs (compared to a limited added value) and technical challenges
in scaling up production capacities. Additional challenges arise from misperceptions and
misrepresentation regarding what biodegradable plastics can achieve (Crippa et al. 2019, see also
the example of oxo- degradable plastics), from a low degradability of available materials in nature,
and from the lack of transferability of degradation data from laboratory to field settings (Haider
et al. 2019).

32
Importantly, when choosing to frame plastic pollution as a waste problem, the principles of the
waste hierarchy apply that clearly prioritizes the prevention and reuse of waste over its recycling,
recovery, or disposal (European Parliament & Council of the European Union 2008). However,
contemporary solutions to the plastic waste problem mainly focus on less preferred options,
especially on recovery and recycling. As an example, the European Strategy for Plastics in a
Circular Economy (European Commission 2018) contains the terms “prevention” and “reuse” only
8 times, each, while it mentions “recycling” 76 times. A reason for that preference might be that
the technological approaches to recycling, recovery, and disposal exist within the waste sector,
whereas approaches to reduce and reuse plastics would require the inclusion of very different
actors, such as social scientists and designers.

4.2.3 Solving the Resource Problem

Framing plastic pollution as a resource problem is based on the idea that we are losing valuable
materials when using plastics in short-lived products, such as packaging and single-use items. Such
framing is closely connected to the waste problem as waste management is transforming into
resources management. In a broader context, however, this idea can be reformulated as a problem
of extractive fossil industries in such that the cause of plastic pollution is indeed the abundance of
fossil feedstocks. Both aspects of the resource framing result in divergent sets of solutions.

Approaches to solve the resource problem from a waste perspective basically cover the upper parts
of the waste hierarchy, namely, recycling and reuse. The rationale is, of course, to retain the
material and functional value of plastics in use and extend the lifetime of materials or products.
This would, in turn, reduce waste generation and the need to produce new plastics. The different
options fall on a spectrum on which reuse and mechanical recycling preserve best the value of
plastics because they avoid the extra costs for breaking up the materials. In contrast, chemical
recycling uses chemical or thermal processes (e.g., depolymerization, pyrolysis, gasification) to
create purified polymers, oligomers, or monomers which then can be reprocessed into new plastics.
This has several advantages over mechanical recycling, such as the higher flexibility and the ability
to deal with mixed and contaminated plastics. Nonetheless, chemical recycling currently requires
significant improvement regarding their technical and economic feasibility as well as a thorough
investigation of its environmental and social impacts (Crippa et al. 2019).
33
In contrast to set of solutions provided by the recycling plastics, retaining plastic products in use
via sharing, repairing, and reusing comes closer to a circular economy ideal. While circular
business models for plastics suffer from the lack of economic incentives (see economic problem),
the four current types of business models include product as a service (“pay-per-use”), circular
supplies (waste of one company becomes the raw material for another), product line extensions
(making products durable, repairable, upgradable), and sharing platforms (Accenture 2014). Such
approaches face challenges not only because plastics move so fast through the value chain and are
handled by multiple actors but also because they challenge the linear economy paradigm. Here,
eco-design guidelines and circularity metrics can help create a more level playing field (Crippa
et al. 2019).

A very different solution, namely, the shift to bio-based plastics, emerges when framing plastic
pollution as a problem of fossil feedstocks. Here, the idea is to reduce the use of petroleum and
natural gas to manufacture plastics and foster the transition to a bio-based economy. Bio-based
plastics can be produced from natural polymers (e.g., starch, cellulose), by plants or microbes (e.g.,
PBS, PHA), and by synthesizing them from biological feedstocks (e.g., ethylene derived from
fermented sugarcane) (Lambert and Wagner 2017). As with biodegradable plastics, the market
share of bio-based material is rather low for economic reasons, but production capacities and
demand are projected to increase in the future (Crippa et al. 2019). The main challenges of shifting
to bio-based plastics are their potential environmental and social impacts associated with land and
pesticide use. These can be addressed by using feedstocks derived from agricultural, forestry, and
food waste as well as from algae (Lambert and Wagner 2017). Eventually, substituting fossil with
renewable carbon sources is a laudable aim that can create many co-benefits. However, it is
important to realize that this will not solve the problem of plastic pollution.

4.2.4 Solving the Economic Problem

A very different perspective on the discourses on plastic pollution is the framing as an economic
problem. As discussed above, many solutions are not competitive in the marketplace due to their
high costs. Accordingly, the low price of virgin plastics which is a result of the low oil and natural
gas prices can be considered the major cause of plastic pollution. Taking such view implies that

34
one major benefit of plastics – their low price – is driving consumption which, in turn, results in
their emission to nature. It also dictates that solutions should address the economy of plastics.

The goal of economic solutions to plastic pollution is to reduce plastic consumption either directly
via financial (dis)incentives or indirectly via creating a level playing field for other solutions,
including alternative materials (e.g., bio-based plastics), recycling, and circular business models.
The simplest and most widely adopted economic instrument is to place levies on single-use
products, especially on plastic bags. For most cases, increasing the price of carrier bag reduced the
consumption but the global effect of such policies remains uncertain (Nielsen et al. 2019). In
addition, there may be unintended consequences and the ecological impacts of replacements in
particular often remain neglected.

Plastic taxes follow the same logic as levies and fees but target a wider range of products. While
there is no literature on the implementation of plastic taxes across countries, the European Union,
for instance, plans to implement a plastic tax on non-recycled plastic packaging waste (European
Council 2020). Similar initiatives exist in the US State of California (Simon 2020). In principle,
such taxes can be raised at the counter to change consumer behavior and/or directed toward plastic
producers (see Powell 2018 for in-depth discussion). The latter aims at internalizing the external
costs of plastics in such that their negative environmental impacts are reflected in their pricing, in
line with the idea of extended producer responsibility. Although the actual external costs of plastics
are far from clear and depend on the specific context, ecosystems services approaches, valorizing
the supporting, provisioning, regulating, and cultural services nature provides, can be used to
estimate those. According to a recent assessment, plastic pollution results in an annual loss of
$500–2500 billion in marine natural capital, or $3300–33,000 per ton plastic in the ocean
(Beaumont et al. 2019).

The benefit of taxing plastic producers would be twofold. If targeting the sale or purchase of non-
recycled plastic monomers or resins, a tax would incentivize recycling. If the tax revenue would
be collected in a dedicated fund, this could be used to subsidize other solutions, such as innovation
in materials, products and business models, or awareness campaigns. General plastic taxes could
be modeled after carbon taxation following the polluter pays principle. However, the latter requires
a value judgment regarding who the polluter indeed is, and different actors would certainly
disagree where to place responsibility along the life cycle of plastics. An additional challenge can

35
be that the taxes are absorbed by the supply chain and, thus, not achieve the desired aim (Powell
2018).

Apart from levies and taxes on specific products, broader plastic taxation has not been
implemented so far. However, the price of virgin plastics is expected to decrease further due to the
oil industry shifting their production away from fuels and massively increase their capacity to
produce new plastics (Pooler 2020). Such technology lock-in will further decrease the pricing of
virgin plastics, propel plastic consumption, and render solving the plastics problem uneconomic.
At the same time, the surge in production may increase the public pressure and political willingness
to implement taxation that mitigates the negative impacts on recycling (Lim 2019) and of
increasing waste exports (Tabuchi et al. 2020) and aggregated greenhouse gas emissions (Gardiner
2019).

4.2.5 Solving the Societal Problem

In contrast to the techno-economic problem-solution frames discussed above, a very different

perspective attributes plastic pollution to a deeper-rooted cause, namely, consumerism and
capitalism. Accordingly, plastic pollution is a result of humanity’s overconsumption of plastics
that is, in turn, driven by our capitalist system. In this way, it becomes a societal problem. It
remains unclear how pervasive such views are, but the idea that we are consuming too much is
one center piece of environmentalism, arguably one of the few remaining major ideologies. The
problem with this framing is that often it remains implicit in the discourse on plastic pollution.
Thus, plastic becomes a proxy to debate larger, value-laden topics, such as industrialization,
economic materialism and growth, globalization, and, eventually, capitalism. The set of solutions
promoted by framing plastic pollution as a societal problem are manifold. Interestingly, there is a
dichotomy regarding who is responsible: When viewed as a consumption problem, solutions
should motivate individuals to change their behaviors. When framed as a capitalist issue, more
collective and systemic change is desired.

Plastic consumption behavior is affected by a range of factors, among others, sociodemographic

variables, convenience, habits, social factors, and environmental attitudes (Heidbreder et al. 2019).
The ban of plastic products, especially of single- use items, such as carrier bags, straws, cutlery,

36
and tableware, targets the convenience and habits of consumers simply by limiting their choice.
Plastic bag bans are now implemented in more than 30 countries, and bans on other single-use
products are in effect in 12 countries (Schnurr et al. 2018). While generally considered effective
and publicly acceptable, plastic bag bans have been criticized to disproportionally affect low-
income and homeless persons. The major criticism concerns the environmental impacts of
replacements made of natural materials (paper, cotton, linen) due to their higher resource demand
and greenhouse gas emissions (Schnurr et al. 2018).

Social factors, including norms and identities, are the drivers for plastic avoidance, another way to
reduce plastic consumption. On the one hand, social pressure and guilt can motivate individuals to
not use plastics (Heidbreder et al. 2019). On the other hand, a person can practice plastic
avoidance, a plastic-free lifestyle being its most intense form, to affirm their identity as
environmentally conscious (Cherrier 2006). Notably, it is exactly those social norms and identities
that environmental interest groups and similarly motivated actors tap into. On the business side,
the marketing of “ethical” plastic products (e.g., made from ocean plastics) applies similar
mechanisms, sometimes criticized as greenwashing. Interestingly, all those solutions are based on
the idea of ethical consumerism, emphasizing individual responsibility, all the while staying firmly
within the realm of capitalism.

As a more collective solution, activities that raise awareness regarding plastic pollution and
consumption (e.g., communication campaigns) target at changing environmental attitudes and
encourage pro-environmental behaviors on a wider scale. Behavior change interventions range
from policies (bans, levies, see above), information campaigns, educational programs, point-of-
sale interventions (e.g., asking if customers want plastic bags rather than handing them out), and
the participation in cleanup activities (Heidbreder et al. 2019; Pahl et al. 2020). Importantly, Pahl
et al. (2020) note that it “is advisable [to] build on personal and social norms and values, as this
could lead to spill over into other pro-environmental domains and behaviours.” This goes in line
with the idea that awareness of plastic pollution is a gateway to wider pro-environmental attitudes
(Ives 2017).

37
 CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The number of scientists dedicated to microplastics research in Nigeria is rising, covering various
disciplines and areas of research. The quality of data generated so far has solely relied on analytical
techniques, with some studies relying on international laboratories to be able to use effective
instruments. In the future, extensive international cooperation on a global scale and a unified
research method of marine microplastics are needed. Although in Nigeria, research on microplastic
pollution is still in infancy, at the current level of detecting if debris is present or absent in a matrix.
Elsewhere, studies on microplastic pollution have evolved beyond this stage and investigations are
now more centered on the assessment of risk, the modelling of microplastics transfer through the
food web, and the association between plastic pollution, environmental plastic reduction, and the
requirement for guideline or regulation. Therefore, toxicological research on marine microplastics
needs to be conducted at environmental concentration and the risk of marine microplastics on
marine ecosystems and human health should be better assessed in Nigeria. There is a data gap on
the quantity of microplastics in Nigeria, which is largely due to the unavailability of instruments
and limited skilled scientists. The government should therefore help in bridging this gap by setting
state-of-the-art laboratories that could help in conducting proper research on microplastics in
Nigeria. In order to tackle the destructive impacts of microplastics, low cost, high-quality, and
environmentally sustainable plastic waste management is required. Waste management measures,
innovation in products, reuse of water, recycling and mulching, the transformation of waste into
power, and hindering of debris at entrance points into the ocean are also recommended.

38
 REFERENCES
Abiodun, O. A., Osuala, F. I., Otitoloju, A. A., Fotsing, C. M., & Ndinteh, D. T. (2019). Micropellet
Particles: A Vector of Hydrophobic Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals in Lagos Lagoon. Current
Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 36(6), 1-14.
https://doi.org/10.9734/cjast/2019/v36i630262
Adeogun, A. O., Ibor, O. R., Khan, E. A., Chukwuka, A. V., Omogbemi, E. D., & Arukwe, A. (2020).
Detection and occurrence of microplastics in the stomach of commercial fish species from a
municipal water supply lake in southwestern Nigeria. Environmental Science and Pollution
Research, 27(25), 31035-31045. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09031-5
Akindele, E. O., Ehlers, S. M., & Koop, J. H. (2019). First empirical study of freshwater microplastics in
West Africa using gastropods from Nigeria as bioindicators. Limnologica, 78, 125708.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.limno.2019.125708
Akindele, E. O., Ehlers, S. M., & Koop, J. H. (2020). Freshwater insects of different feeding guilds ingest
microplastics in two Gulf of Guinea tributaries in Nigeria. Environmental Science and Pollution
Research, 27, 33373-33379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08763-8
Alimi, O. S., Farner Budarz, J., Hernandez, L. M., Tufenkji, N. (2018). Microplastics and nanoplastics
in aquatic environments: aggregation, deposition, and enhanced contaminant transport.
Environmental Science and Technology, 52, 1704e1724. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b05559
Brander, S., Hecht, S., & Kuivila, K. (2015). The challenge:" bridging the gap" with fish: advances in
assessing exposure and effects across biological scales. Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry, 34(3), 459-459. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.2829
Briggs, E., de Moura, E. A. B., Furusawa, H. A., Cotrim, M. E. B., Oguzie, E. E., & Lugao, A. B.
(2019). In Characterization of Minerals, Metals, and Materials. The Minerals, Metals and
Materials Series. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05749-7_27
Cole, M., & Sherrington, C. (2016). Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: A review.
Marine Pollution Bulletin, 113(1–2), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.09.025
Dris, R., Imhof, H., Sanchez, W., Gasperi, J., Galgani, F., Tassin, B., & Laforsch, C. (2015). Beyond
the ocean: Contamination of freshwater ecosystems with (micro-)plastic particles.
Environmental Chemistry, 12(5), 539–550. https://doi.org/10.1071/EN14172
Enyoh, C. B., Andrew Verla, W., Ohiagu, F. O., & Enyoh, E. C. (2021). Progress and future
perspectives of microplastic research in Nigeria. International Journal of Environmental
Analytical Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1080/03067319.2021.1887161
Enyoh, C. E., Shafea, L., Verla, A. W., Verla, E. N., Qingyue, W., Chowdhury, T., & Paredes, M. (2020).
Microplastics exposure routes and toxicity studies to ecosystems: an overview. Environmental
analysis, health and toxicology, 35(1). https://doi.org/10.5620/eaht.e2020004
Ebere, E. C., Wirnkor, V. A., Ngozi, V. E., & Chukwuemeka, I. S. (2019). Macrodebris and microplastics
pollution in Nigeria: First report on abundance, distribution and composition. Environmental
analysis, health and toxicology, 34(4). https://doi.org/10.5620/eaht.e2019012

39
Enyoh, C. E., Verla, A. W., Verla, E. N., Ibe, F. C., & Amaobi, C. E. (2019). Airborne microplastics: a
review study on method for analysis, occurrence, movement and risks. Environmental monitoring
and assessment, 191, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-019-7842-0
Eriksen, M., Lebreton, L. C. M., Carson, H. S., Thiel, M., Moore, C. J., Borerro, J. C., & Reisser, J.
(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(12), e111913.
Fendall, L. S., & Sewell, M. A. (2009). Contributing to marine pollution by washing your face:
microplastics in facial cleansers. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 58, 1225e1228.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.04.025
Geyer, R., Jambeck, J. R., & Law, K. L. (2017). Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made.
Science Advances, 3(7), e1700782.
Gouin, T., Roche, N., & Lohmann, R. (2011). The role of atmospheric deposition in the occurrence of
organic compounds in oceans. Deep-Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography,
58(25–26), 2624–2634.
Horton, A. A., Walton, A., Spurgeon, D. J., Lahive, E., & Svendsen, C. (2017). Microplastics in
freshwater and terrestrial environments: Evaluating the current understanding to identify the
knowledge gaps and future research priorities. Science of The Total Environment, 586, 127–
141.
Ilechukwu, I., Ndukwe, G. I., Mgbemena, N. M., & Akandu, A. U. (2019). Occurrence of microplastics in
surface sediments of beaches in Lagos, Nigeria. European Chemical Bulletin, 8, 371.
https://doi.org/10.17628/ecb.2019.8.371-375
Jambeck, J. R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T. R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., & Law, K. L. (2015).
Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science, 347(6223), 768–771.
Karlsson, T. M., Vethaak, A. D., Almroth, B. C., Ariese, F., van Velzen, M., & Hassellöv, M. (2018).
Screening for microplastics in sediment, water, marine invertebrates, and fish: Method
development and microplastic accumulation. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 133, 178–185.
Lei, L., Wu, S., Lu, S., & Liu, M. (2017). Microplastic particles in rivers of the Pearl River Delta,
China: Abundance, sources, and biological toxicity. Environmental Science & Technology,
51(10), 5718–5729.
Lithner, D., Nordensvan, I., & Dave, G. (2011). Comparative acute toxicity of leachates from plastic
products made of polypropylene, polyethylene, PVC, acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene, and
epoxy to Daphnia magna. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 18(4), 519–527.
Lonnstedt, O. M., & Eklöv, P. (2016). Environmentally relevant concentrations of microplastic
particles influence larval fish ecology. Science, 352, 1213e1216.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad8828
Mintenig, S., Löder, M., Primpke, S., & Gerdts, G. (2019). Low numbers of microplastics detected in
drinking water from groundwater sources. Science of The Total Environment, 648, 631–635.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.178

40
Mohajerani, A., & Karabatak, B. (2020). Microplastics and pollutants in biosolids have contaminated
agricultural soils: An analytical study and a proposal to cease the use of biosolids in
farmlands and utilize them in sustainable bricks. Waste Management, 107, 252–265.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.04.021
Müller, C., Napper, I. E., Bakir, A., Rowland, S. J., & Thompson, R. C. (2015). Characterization,
quantity, and sorptive properties of microplastics extracted from cosmetics. Marine Pollution
Bulletin, 99, 178–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.07.029
Nel, H. A., Dalu, T., Wasserman, R. J., & Hean, J. W. (2019). Colour and size influences plastic
microbead underestimation, regardless of sediment grain size. Science of The Total
Environment, 655, 567–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.261
Olarinmoye, O. M., Stock, F., Scherf, N., Whenu, O., Asenime, C., & Ganzallo, S. (2020). Microplastic
presence in sediment and water of a lagoon bordering the urban agglomeration of Lagos, Southwest
Nigeria. Geosciences, 10(12), 494. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences10120494
Oni, B. A., Ayeni, A. O., Agboola, O., Oguntade, T., & Obanla, O. (2020). Comparing microplastics
contaminants in (dry and raining) seasons for Ox-Bow Lake in Yenagoa, Nigeria. Ecotoxicology
and environmental safety, 198, 110656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.110656
Ryan, P. G., Moore, C. J., van Franeker, J. A., & Moloney, C. L. (2009). Monitoring the abundance of
plastic debris in the marine environment. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B,
364, 1999e2012.
Su, L., Xue, Y., Li, L., Yang, D., Kolandhasamy, P., & Li, D. (2016). Microplastics in Taihu Lake,
China. Environmental Pollution, 214, 90–98.
Townsend, K., & Matschullat, J. (2012). Experimental degradation of polymer shopping bags
(standard and degradable plastic, and biodegradable) in the gastrointestinal fluids of sea
turtles. Science of The Total Environment, 416, 464–467.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.10.069
Verla, A. W., Enyoh, C. E., Isiuku, B. O., Verla, E. N., Qingyue, W., Chowdhury, M. A. H., &
Chowdhury, T. (2020). AIMS Environmental Science, 7, 526.
https://doi.org/10.3934/environsci.2020033
Verla, A. W., Enyoh, C. E., Verla, E. N., & Nwarnorh, K. O. (2019). Microplastic–toxic chemical
interaction: a review study on quantified levels, mechanism and implication. SN Applied
Sciences, 1(11), 1-30.
Verschoor, A. J., Hermsen, E., Keuken, M. P., van Wezel, A. P., Peijnenburg, W. J., & Hendriks, A.
J. (2016). Risk assessment of microplastics in the ocean: Modelling approach and first
conclusions. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 12(4), 688–695.
Wang, J., Chen, Y., & Li, J. (2019). A new source of atmospheric microplastic particles: Traffic.
Atmospheric Environment, 214, 116880.
Wang, Q., Enyoh, C. E., Chowdhury, T., & Chowdhury, M. A. H. (2020). International Journal of
Environmental Analytical Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1080/03067319.2020.1811262

41