Microplastics_in_the_ecosystems_Their_implications

Environmental Science
Advances
PERSPECTIVE
Microplastics in ecosystems: their implications and

Cite this: Environ. Sci.: Adv., 2022, 1, 9
mitigation pathways†
Poritosh Roy,ab Amar K. Mohanty *ab and Manjusri Misra *ab
Microplastic (MP) pollution is an emerging threat to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. It is abundant,
environmentally persistent, and complex. Environmental, economic, and societal concerns over the
effect of MP pollution in ecosystems have attracted enormous attention for research on alternatives and
potential remediation options. Plastic/MP pollution in aquatic ecosystems has been extensively studied
and summarized; however, studies on terrestrial ecosystems are limited. Neither recent technological
advances in the remediation of MP pollution nor their economic and societal implications have been
thoroughly examined. This study compiled information on MP pollution in ecosystems and food chains,
emphasizing the terrestrial ecosystem, recent technological advances, economic and societal
implications, and the remediation of microplastic pollution. The perspectives of future activities have also
been discussed and a potential remediation pathway has been outlined. MPs are pervasive in all channels
(soil, water and atmosphere) of human interactions and hazardous to biota in ecosystems, eventually
contaminating food systems and affecting human health. Leaked plastics, plastic-containing products
(biosolids, wastewater, fertilizers, and pesticides), and plastic mulch used in agriculture, polyamide
fabrics, and cosmetics products are the major sources of MP pollution. The development of alternatives
to conventional plastics and materials that can abate or minimize the problems associated with MPs and
the improvement in waste management systems to stop plastic waste leakage into ecosystems as well as
cleanup drives are critical to eradicating MPs. Biodegradable plastic is recognized as an alternative to
conventional plastic as it degrades faster than conventional plastics and is more prone to
microorganisms. Biodegradable plastics coupled with bioremediation (eradicating MPs by using
microorganisms) of MPs show a potential means to eradicate problems associated with MPs polluting
ecosystems. Consequently, biodegradable plastics that are produced from non-edible biomass such as
Received 16th September 2021
Accepted 6th February 2022
algae can be a potential pathway to eradicate MP pollution for sustainable ecosystems. Therefore,
comprehensive studies are essential to assess the environmental, economic and social impacts of
DOI: 10.1039/d1va00012h
biodegradable plastics and bioremediation of MPs in ecosystems to avoid any potential risk to
rsc.li/esadvances ecosystems and health.
Environmental signicance
The growing concerns about the environmental, economic, and societal impacts of microplastics have drawn enormous attention towards methods that can
help eradicate microplastics from ecosystems. Although plastic/microplastic pollution mitigation strategies have been extensively studied for aquatic ecosys-
tems, terrestrial ecosystems and food systems are both understudied. Technological advances in the plastic sector should have strategies to eradicate micro-
plastics. This study summarizes the role of microplastics centering around their presence in terrestrial ecosystems and food systems, the economic and societal
implications, and recent technological advances to combat their pollution. A potential microplastic remediation pathway could include bioremediation coupled
with biodegradable plastic from renewable sources. The use of a remediation pathway would be a potential method to eradicate microplastic pollution from
ecosystems.
Introduction
a
School of Engineering, University of Guelph, Thornbrough Building, 50 Stone Road
East, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]; mmisra@ Plastic products have become an integral part of every human
uoguelph.ca activity because of their light weight and convenience, thus
b
Bioproducts Discovery and Development Centre, Department of Plant Agriculture, becoming ubiquitous in all facets of the economy.1 The
University of Guelph, Crop Science Building, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, Ontario
increasing demand for plastics leads to increasing production
N1G 2W1, Canada
and waste generation, which has created enormous problems,
† Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available. See DOI:
10.1039/d1va00012h especially in the form of single-use plastics. In 2018, global
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by the Royal Society of Chemistry Environ. Sci.: Adv., 2022, 1, 9–29 | 9
Environmental Science: Advances Perspective
plastic production was 359 million tonnes,2,3 and its production also growing. For example, in China, plastic mulching
is predicted to increase due to growing populations and increased from 0.6 million tonnes in 1991 to 2.6 million tonnes
increasing demands. The packaging sector is the main in 2015.12 Annually, Canadian agriculture uses 40 000 tonnes of
contributor to total global plastic waste, followed by textiles, plastics; however, only about 5000 tonnes of this plastic is
consumer products and other sectors.4 recycled.13 Plastics used in agriculture are known to be one of
Municipal solid waste (MSW) generation is predicted to the major sources of plastic pollution in soil or agroecosystems.
increase by 70% by 2050.5 Plastics in MSW are also increasing The benet of plastics in society is undeniable; however,
dramatically with the increasing use of plastic products, espe- mismanaged waste plastics become hazardous to ecosystems.
cially single-use plastics. For example, in the United States of Growing plastic pollution has created enormous challenges to
America, plastics in MSW went from 25.6 million tonnes in 2000 ecosystems. Globally, mismanaged plastic waste is predicted to
to 35.4 million tonnes in 2017.6 Canada produces about 3.3 be 69.1 million tonnes in 2025,3 which is expected to end up in
million tonnes of plastic waste each year and sends 86% (2.8 landlls or in the oceans, which eventually fragments/degrades
million tonnes) to landlls.7–9 In Canada, the major sources of into microplastics (MPs) and nally into nanoplastics (NPs).
waste plastics are packaging, auto and electronics industries, Annually, about 4–23 times more plastic waste is released into
agriculture, etc. Common agricultural plastic waste is plastic terrestrial ecosystems compared to marine ecosystems.12 Plastic
mulch, bale/silage wraps, bags, greenhouse lm, containers, waste and MPs in aquatic ecosystems are creating enormous
etc.10 Biodegradable plastic mulch has also been used in agri- problems for the biota in aquatic ecosystems such as endan-
culture to mitigate the problems associated with the disposal of gered polychaetes, crustaceans, zooplankton, etc.; thus, the
used plastic mulch.11 The use of plastic mulch in agriculture is marine biodiversity.14 In terrestrial ecosystems, it affects soil
Dr Poritosh Roy is an Agricul- Prof. Amar Mohanty is a Distin-

tural Engineer (P. Eng). His guished Research Chair in
areas of research interest are Sustainable Biomaterials at the
value-added product develop- Ontario Agriculture College and
ment from biomass (thermo- the Director of the Bioproducts
chemical and biochemical Discovery and Development
conversion, co-processing), bio- Centre. He is a Professor in the
based economy, bioprocessing Department of Plant Agriculture
& bioreactor design, food pro- and School of Engineering at the
cessing, industrial symbiosis, University of Guelph, Ontario,
life cycle assessment and life Canada. Dr Mohanty is the
cycle costing of agri-food indus- Editor-in-Chief of Sustainable
tries. He has authored/co- Composites @ Composites Part
authored 58 peer-reviewed research articles and 5 book chapters. C – Open Access. He is one of the most cited researchers worldwide
He served as a Guest Editor for special issues of Sustainability with more than 800 publications to his credit, including 434 peer-
(MDPI) and AIMS Energy (AIMS Press). He is an Editorial Board reviewed journal papers, 6 edited books, over 400 conference
Member of ‘AIMS Energy’ and the ‘Journal of Food Science and presentations, 25 book chapters, and 67 patents awarded/applied
Nutrition Therapy’. Currently, Dr Roy is working as a researcher at (Google Scholar citations 42,757, h-index 93 as of December 4,
the Bioproducts Discovery and Development Centre (BDDC) and 2021). He has received many awards, the most recent one being the
Special Graduate Faculty at the School of Engineering, University prestigious Miroslaw Romanowski Medal in 2021 for his signi-
of Guelph, Ontario, Canada. cant scientic contributions to the resolution of environmental
problems from the Royal Society of Canada. He has also received
the Synergy Award for Innovation from the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), the Andrew
Chase Forest Products Division Award from the American Institute
of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) and the Lifetime Achievement
Award from the BioEnvironmental Polymer Society (BEPS). Prof.
Mohanty is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, the American
Institute of Chemical Engineers, the Royal Society of Chemistry
(UK) and the Society of Plastic Engineers. He is a pioneer in
advanced biomaterials research with lifelong dedication to devel-
oping sustainable materials to reduce the environmental impacts
of plastics. His vision of a circular economy and innovation in
bioproducts for mitigating climate change has motivated a number
of discoveries.
10 | Environ. Sci.: Adv., 2022, 1, 9–29 © 2022 The Author(s). Published by the Royal Society of Chemistry
Perspective Environmental Science: Advances
biota, seed germination, plant growth and plant terrestrial biota. At the same time, food and feed chains are
productivity.15–17 gradually becoming contaminated with plastic particles (MPs,
The primary sources of MPs and NPs are plastic powder used NPs, etc.). The growing plastic pollution problem could have
in cosmetics, paint and coating, and detergents; however, waste a long-lasting impact on ecosystems and the health of living
plastics, abrasion of tires, urban dust, and synthetic cloths are beings.
known to be the secondary sources.18,19 Other sources of MPs/ MPs in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and food systems
NPs are the plastics used in households, industry, shing, have been extensively studied;17,26–29 however, there are no
and agriculture.19,20 Both synthetic and biopolymers are studies that compiled the information on plastics/MPs/NPs in
responsible for terrestrial and aquatic plastic pollution. Fig. 1 terrestrial ecosystems and food systems highlighting either
shows an overview of the sources of MPs, their impacts and recent technological advances or environmental, economic, and
migration pathways.21 The size of 95% of microbeads used in societal issues of plastic pollution, especially MPs from biode-
personal care products was less than 300 mm, and the concen- gradable plastics. Several reviews have been conducted on
tration of microbeads in personal care products was noted to be plastic/MP/NP pollution in aquatic ecosystems,28–33 terrestrial
1.9–71.9 mg g1 of products.22 Particles equal to or smaller than ecosystems34–36 and food systems,37 where the authors have
1 mm are the most abundant in aquatic, marine, and terrestrial discussed either physiochemical properties, behavior, toxicity
environments. These tiny particles are recognized as hazardous or remediation of MPs/NPs. This study compiles information on
elements, and their impact on human health is understudied plastic pollution in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, and food
and not well understood.23–25 The presence of degraded plastics systems and discusses some recent initiatives to combat the
in all ecosystems affects the soil, water, and atmospheric envi- evolving problems associated with plastic pollution, especially
ronment, thus creating adverse impacts on aquatic and MPs in the atmosphere, water, soil, and food chains from both
conventional and biodegradable plastics, and their implica-
tions in ecosystems.
Dr Manjusri Misra is a Professor
and Tier 1 Canada Research Waste plastic management systems
Chair (CRC) in Sustainable Bio-
composites in the School of A large amount of plastic leaks into ecosystems due to improper
Engineering and holds a joint waste management and slowly degrades and affects ecosystems
appointment in the Department and the environment.38–41 It was estimated that only 9% of the
of Plant Agriculture at the global virgin plastics are recycled, 12% incinerated, and the rest
University of Guelph. As well, she are purposely (landlled) or unintentionally dumped into the
is the Research Program Director environment.42–44 However, in Europe, waste plastic recycling,
of the Bioeconomy Panel for the incineration, and landlling shared 30, 39, and 31%, respec-
Ontario Agri-Food Innovation tively.45 In Canada, 86, 9, 4, and 1% of plastic waste was land-
Alliance, a program between the lled, recycled, converted into energy, and abandoned in the
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture environment in 2016, respectively.46 In Europe, the recycling of
and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) and the University of Guelph. Dr Misra polyethylene lms has enhanced by 30% due to circular
completed her Bachelors, Master's, MPhil and PhD from Ravenshaw economy initiatives and attracted more investment in this
College at Utkal University in India majoring in Chemistry with sector.18 In addition, pyrolysis/co-pyrolysis (a thermal treatment
a specialization in Polymer Chemistry and Natural Fibers during is given to a feedstock or multiple feedstocks under an oxygen-
her graduate program. Dr Misra's current research focuses deprived condition) is also becoming a potential pathway for
primarily on novel bio-based composites and nanocomposites from plastic waste management because of its environmental and
agricultural, forestry and recycled resources for a sustainable bio- economic advantages47–50 and can be an alternative to inciner-
economy moving towards a circular economy. She has authored ation and landlling.51
more than 750 publications, including 425 peer-reviewed journal The combined management strategies may help overcome
papers, 21 book chapters, and 53 patents. She was the editor or co- the persisting problems in plastic waste management, such as
editor of 4 books in the area of biocomposites and nano-composites. improved collection and processing, restricted and controlled
She is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry (UK), the American access to plastic, or environmentally friendly alternative plas-
Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), and the Society of Plastic tics. The alternative material may ease the complexity of waste
Engineers (SPE). Dr Misra has received many awards including the segregation and collection, and the downstream waste
Synergy Award for Innovation from the Natural Sciences and management problems and, thus, may help reduce plastic
Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC); the Andrew pollution in ecosystems.
Chase Forest Products Division Award from the American Institute
of Chemical Engineers and the Lifetime Achievement Award from Degradation of waste plastics
the BioEnvironmental Polymer Society (BEPS). In 2020, she was
selected as one of Canada's Most Powerful Women: Top 100 Award Leaked or mismanaged plastics degrade into smaller
Winner in the Manulife Science and Technology category from the fragments/particles in ecosystems over time. Plastic particles
Women Executive Network. between 5 mm and 1 mm are dened as microplastics (MPs);12,21
Fig. 1An overview of the sources of microplastics, their implications and migration pathways [adapted from ref. 21, Copyright the Royal Society
of Chemistry].
Fig. 2 Schematic diagram of the degradation process of waste plastics [adapted from ref. 21, Copyright the Royal Society of Chemistry].
further degradation of MPs generates ner particles which are Amycolatopsis sp. and Actinomadura sp.) can degrade both
known as nanoplastics (NPs) (Fig. 2). MPs are found in water, synthetic and natural plastics.55 The degradation of leaked
soil, and air,18 which are hazardous to ecosystems as these plastic depends on its surrounding conditions (e.g., in the
particles are ingested by soil or marine biota, causing various terrestrial or marine ecosystem), types of plastics (synthetic or
health problems for them and contaminating food systems. natural plastics), and their characteristics (e.g., hydrophobicity,
Based on the particle size, MPs are dened as small- (<1 mm), molecular weight, crystallinity, hardness, forms of plastics,
medium- (1–3 mm), and large (3–5 mm);52 however, particle etc.).55 Hydrophilic degradation is faster compared to hydro-
sizes of 1–1000 mm and <1 mm are dened as NPs and pico- phobic degradation.55 For example, the specic surface degra-
plastics, respectively.34 The fragmented plastics are also cate- dation rate of polylactic acid (PLA) on land is 20 times faster
gorized as mesoplastic (5–25 mm) and macroplastic >25 mm.53 than that of high-density polyethylene (HDPE); however,
The degradation processes of leaked plastics are physical-, a similar degradation was observed in the marine environ-
photo-, chemical-, and biodegradation.54 Microorganisms such ment.56 The characteristics of MPs can keep changing due to
as fungi (e.g., Aspergillus sp. and Penicillium sp.), bacteria (e.g., fragmentation/degradation during their residence time. The
Azotobacter sp. and Pseudomonas sp.), and actinomycetes (e.g., mobility of MPs is inuenced by human activities, morphology,
Fig. 3 Adsorption mechanisms between microplastics and chemicals [adapted with permission from ref. 29, Copyright Elsevier, 2021].
and hydrology,57 thus altering their bioavailability and biolog- increasing their toxicological effects and becoming more
ical fate.58 MPs act as a sink and vectors of toxic inorganic and harmful to biota.73 The pollutant absorption capacity of aged
organic compounds and become more hazardous to biota when MPs is higher than that of virgin ones.74,75 Fig. 3 represents the
those compounds are released into their surroundings.59 The adsorption mechanism between MPs and chemicals. The
fragmented or degraded plastic particles oat on the water contaminant transportation by MPs in the marine environment
surface, settle on marine snow, submerge in different depths of depends on salinity, dissolved organic matter and tempera-
water columns or settle on the seabed depending on particle ture.29 Ciprooxacin (an organic compound) sorption capacity
sizes and absorption of chemicals or contaminants, making of MPs decreases with salinity and the cation competition
them accessible to all the aquatic biota and nally affecting reduces adsorption efficiency by 70%.29,75,76 The sorption
food systems and human health.37,60 behaviour of MPs also depends on the particle size, age,
The degradation of waste plastics in ecosystems is mainly hydrophobicity, hydrogen bonding and specic surface ratio.29
driven by ultraviolet (UV)-radiation induced photooxidation, For example, the sorption of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
which releases monomers and oligomers and forms smaller on PVC decreased with increased chlorinated congeners
fragments.58,61 The smaller polymer fragments are more because of higher cohesive density.77
susceptible to biodegradation. First, the plastic polymers
degrade into their monomers, and then the monomers are
nally mineralized.62,63 Although MPs accumulate from various Microplastic assessment methods and
sources, the oceans become the nal sink for all sorts of plastic
particles because MPs from upstream (either terrestrial or
tools
freshwater plastics) end up in the oceans. In addition, most of Several methods are being used for extracting/separating MPs
the commercial plastics (such as PE: polyethylene, PP: poly- from soil, sludge, sediment, and water (ESI: Table SI-1†).
propylene, PS: polystyrene, PET: polyethylene terephthalate, However, universally accepted suitable methods of MP and NP
PVC: polyvinyl chloride, polycarbonate, etc.)61,64–66 contain identication and quantication are lacking.18,19,78 Commonly
additives such as bisphenol A (BPA), phthalates, poly- used methods are sieving, ltering, heating (130 C for 3–5 s),
brominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE), etc.,61,67 which are usually and density suspension for soil samples. Simultaneously, acid-,
not covalently bonded with the polymer and are released during alkali-, and enzyme digestion and chemical oxidation are used
the waste plastic degradation process;61,68 thus, creating to remove impurities such as organic matter.34 Thermal
a dynamic mixture of polymers and additives binding organic extraction and desorption gas chromatography (TED-GC) is an
materials and contaminants to develop an ‘ecocorona’, integrated approach for environmental samples to characterize
a complex generated between MPs and organic materials multicomponents in complex samples such as particles,
present in the environment,69 which changes their toxicity and chemicals, etc.79 The weighing method (mass of MPs was
bioavailability.58 The ecocorona then modulates the absorption measured) is used for samples that contain fewer impurities
of bacteria and can form a thin layer on the surface of plastic and a high mass of MPs in water or sediment.80
particles, which is known as biolm.58 The settling of MPs and Commonly used methods are visual screening, scanning
NPs depends on biofouling and the type of polymers.70,71 electron microscopy (SEM), Raman spectroscopy, and FTIR.34
In addition, MPs exhibit a Trojan horse effect, i.e., absorb Thermal extraction desorption gas chromatography-mass
contaminants, chemicals, and heavy metals;72,73 thus, spectrometry (TED-GC-MS) and pyrolysis-gas chromatography
coupled with mass spectrometry (PY-GC-MS) have also been plastic particles remain in different depths of water depending
used for identifying and quantifying MPs.81,82 A study on beach on their size and density and some are exported to the seabed.58
and coastal sediments noted that Raman spectroscopy is MP accumulation and settling on the seaoor are also depen-
a better assessment tool for identifying smaller particles, dent on the thermohaline-driven current in the sea.101 The
especially with a particle size #20 mm compared to FTIR.83 concentration of MPs in the freshwater system also varies
However, the study also recommended FTIR and Raman spec- depending on the geographical location. For example, the
troscopy for identifying MPs of 50–500 mm and 1–50 mm, density of MPs in river surface water of the Tibet Plateau and
respectively.84 Yangtze Estuary was 483–967 particles per m3 and 4137 particles
per m3, respectively, because of the difference in population
Microplastics in ecosystems density.102 In New Zealand, the urban water streams are noted to
be one of the major sources of MPs in freshwater systems.103 In
Aquatic ecosystem Canada, yearly MP discharge via wastewater inuent and
Globally, about 10–20 million tonnes of plastics end up in the effluent was 28 550 billion and 6939 billion, respectively.97 The
oceans every year because of irresponsible public behavior or effluent from WWTPs contains 0.2–1.8% (0.7 particles per L),
inadequate waste management systems.85,86 Annually, about which is usually discharged on farmland in Australia.104
1.2–2.4 million tonnes of plastic enter the oceans via rivers, with The concentration of MPs in marine sediment varied from
Asia contributing to 67% of this plastic waste.87 The presence of 42–6595 particles per kg depending on the depth and position
microplastics (MPs) in the marine ecosystem was rst investi- of sampling.99 On the other hand, the concentration of MPs in
gated in 1971.88 Nowadays, the presence of MPs all over the the river-bank sediment was 161–432 MPs per kg, where bres
world has been identied, such as in almost all aquatic contributed more than 88%.105 In India, the concentration of
ecosystems,34,83,89,90 agroecosystems,27 and food and beverage MPs in high tide line and low tide line beach sediments along
systems.91 MPs are harmful to both marine and human life;25,92 the southeast coast of India was noted to be 1323 1228 mg
however, their toxicity is not well known.78 The accumulation of m2 and 178 261 mg m2, respectively.106 MPs in the aquatic
MPs was also observed in regions that are far from population environment (1–230 mm; 0.1–10 mg L1) affected the sea urchin
centres, such as polar-/Arctic Sea ice90 and in remote moun- and its offspring.107
tains,93 which indicates atmospheric deposition of MPs. It has In the aquatic environment, waste plastics release
also been reported that global warming may result in melting chemicals/additives and other components (such as PAHs:
polar-/Arctic Sea ice and release accumulated MPs in sea ice.90 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; PCBs: polychlorinated
Consequently, it is essential to understand the leakage of MPs biphenyls; EDCs: endocrine-disrupting chemicals; PBDEs: pol-
and NPs from the use phase of plastic products. ybrominated diphenylethers; DOM: dissolved organic matter;
The wastewater treatment plant is another source of plastic DOC: dissolved organic carbon; POM: particle organic matter)
pollution in the aquatic systems.94–96 About 50% of global during degradation (Fig. 4), which then affect the marine biota
wastewater streams remain untreated, which adds 3.85 1016 and transfer into food systems through ingestion, egestion,
MPs into the aquatic systems; however, 90% of this pollution reingestion, adsorption, etc.29 Polybutyrate adipate-co-tere-
can be abated if wastewater is treated before being released into phthalate (PBAT) also exhibited greater sorption and desorption
the aquatic environment.97 Regular laundry processes of capacities of phenanthrene (an organic pollutant) compared to
synthetic clothes [made of polyester, polyester–elastane and polyethylene (PE) and polystyrene (PS) as well as carbonaceous
polyamide–elastane (these are known as stretch fabrics, which geosorbents.108 The authors also noted that the sorption and
are different than the rayon and cotton fabrics, usually used in desorption rates of MPs are correlated with the rubbery sub-
sports clothes)] released 175–560 microbers per g-garments in fraction and the surrounding environment. Although enormous
5–10 consecutive washing cycles; where the type of fabric did emphasis has been placed on the MP contamination in the
not inuence the release of microbers.94 However, the release marine ecosystem, we still lack adequate information on the
of microbers can be reduced by a homogeneous coating of oceans. Also, due to the abundance of MPs in the terrestrial
biodegradable polymers (PLA: polylactic acid, PBSA: poly- ecosystem,109,110 attention also needs to be paid to the terrestrial
butylene succinate-co-butylene adipate) on the surface of poly- ecosystems. Studies on fresh water and terrestrial ecosystems
amide fabrics.98 For example, effluent from a textile wet will also enhance the scope of identifying the sources of MPs in
processing mill contained 361.6 24.5 microbres per L, and ecosystems because they are the primary receivers of agricul-
most of them (92%) were shorter than 1000 mm.95 Although tural and urban waste.111
wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) can remove larger MP
particles, they are noted to be inefficient for removing smaller
particles (<100 mm) which remain in the effluent released into Terrestrial ecosystem
aquatic ecosystems. Consequently, a WWTP annually may Plastic mulch used on farmland is identied as one of the main
release more than 100 billion MP particles.30 sources of microplastic (MP) contamination, along with
In the global marine environment, 15–51 trillion MP parti- compost, sewage sludge, biosolids, irrigation water, atmo-
cles are oating with varying densities.97,99 For example, MP spheric deposition, road dust, etc.52,112–114 Atmospheric deposi-
density in marginal seas and densely populated coastlines is tion of MPs on the ground in urban and remote locations took
higher than in the deep oceans.100 In addition, some of the place during both the- dry and wet periods.115 Biosolid (solid
Fig. 4 The role of microplastics in an aquatic environment [adapted with permission from ref. 29, Copyright Elsevier, 2021].
organic matter, recovered from wastewater/sewage and migrated to the aquatic environment.116 Consequently, terres-
commonly used as fertilizer on farmland) is applied on the trial MPs also contaminate surface and underground water
surface of farmland or injected depending on the soil satura- systems as well as marine ecosystems. However, the migration
tion. The concentration of MPs in biosolid was 8678–14 407 of MPs is dependent on their size, shape and surface
MPs per kg.116,117 However, a higher range of MPs in biosolid characteristics.34
(10 926–64 986 MPs per kg) has also been reported.118 Applica- Fragmented plastics and MPs were identied in agricultural
tion of contaminated biosolid (1–15 t ha1) on farmland soil where plastic mulch was used.20 The concentration of MPs
resulted in topsoil contamination of 4–150 pieces per kg per in cropped soil is reported to be 571 pieces per kg and 263
year.117 The concentration of MPs in farm soil also depended on pieces per kg in mulched soil and non-mulched soil, respec-
the intensity of sewage sludge application.112,114,116 For example, tively.27 The concentration of MPs in the soil is also dependent
the concentration of MPs increased by 710 pieces per kg for on the intensity of mulching. For example, the concentration of
each successive application of sewage sludge (20–22 t ha1).114 MPs was 80.3 49.3, 308 138.1, and 1075.6 346.8 pieces per
MP contamination was higher in topsoil compared to deep- kg for 5, 15, and 24 years of continuous mulching, which indi-
soil.52 In Xinjiang, plastic contamination was 259–381 kg ha1 cates that MPs in soil originated from the plastic mulch.122 The
in cotton elds, which are reported to be the most severe source fate of MPs in soil depends on the physicochemical properties
of plastic pollution on farmland in China.119 In Switzerland, of soil and biota in soil123 as well as the type of plastic. For
more than 90% of oodplain soils (soil deposited on ood- example, the population of bacteria was higher than fungi
prone land next to a river or stream) are contaminated by adjacent to weathered biodegradable mulch compared to the
MPs. The concentration of MPs in soils depended on the pop- unweathered one. Weathering enhances the degradation
ulation density of the area, which indicates that plastic waste process.11 MPs in soil absorb toxic chemicals and heavy metals
was the source of MPs.120 The biosolid from waste water treat- as well as antibiotics and become more harmful to soil biota.36
ment plants (WWTPs) contains 8–16% (41.4 particles per g) Polyethylene (PE), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and polyethylene
MPs, which are usually discharged on farmland in Australia.104 terephthalate (PET) are the most commonly found polymers in
Farmlands in the United States of America, the European the terrestrial ecosystem.34 The presence of additives in plastics
Union, China, Canada, and Australia annually added about increases the ecological toxicity of plastics. For example,
21 249, 26 042, 13 660, 1,518, and 1241 tonnes of MPs, respec- phthalic acid esters (PAEs) used in agricultural plastics (agri-
tively, through the application of biosolid.118 A widespread cultural lms/mulch) are a source of MP contamination in fruits
application of sewage sludge or biosolid from WWTPs would be and vegetables grown on the PAE contaminated soil,124 thus
a major source of MPs in farm soil and affect food production. accumulate in food systems. The concentration of PAEs in
The migration of MPs from soil to the aquatic system agricultural soil was 1.8–3.5 mg kg1, where plastic mulch was
(marine, fresh, and groundwater systems) can take place used.125 However, MPs were also found on farmland where
through surface runoff, bioturbation, tillage, water inltration, neither agricultural plastics nor MP containing fertilizers were
wind erosion, animal grazing, etc.15,34,52,113,121 It has also been applied126 because of atmospheric deposition.
reported that 99% of MPs in biosolid applied on farmland
MPs affect the biophysical properties (damage soil structure, whose impacts on the environment are poorly understood.11,139
reduce aeration and water permeability and water holding Degradation of biodegradable plastics also depends on the
capacity) of soil17,127,128 because of the decreasing absorption types of plastics and the degradation environment.140–142 In soil,
capacity of freely available chemicals in soil-water due to the the degradation of weathered polylactic acid (PLA)/
hydrophobicity of MPs.129 Fig. 5 shows an overview of the polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA)-based biodegradable plastic
atmospheric deposition of MPs in the terrestrial ecosystem and mulch was greater than that of the unweathered PBAT-based
their effects on soil properties and feedbacks to the atmo- biodegradable plastics because microbes preferred PHA over
sphere.130 MPs negatively affect the soils organic carbon, polylactic acid (PLA), and starch over PBAT.11 The degradation
nutrient transfer, nitrogen cycling, microbial activity, and rate of PLA buried in soil at 37 C is also reported to be much
biodiversity;15,130–133 thus, leading to reduced plant growth and slower than that in the microorganism-rich composting
productivity.59,127,128 For example, agricultural yields diminish facility.136 Aer 12 months, the molecular weight loss of PLA in
substantially when plastic waste accumulation reaches 72–260 compost was 20%; however, in soil there was no signicant
kg ha1.134,135 The presence of MPs in soil alters soil stability and weight loss.136
affects germination, shoot growth, and productivity. The degradation of polycaprolactone (PCL) was faster
Biodegradable plastics are recognized as an alternative to compared with PHB, PLA and poly(1,4-butylene) succinate
plastics from fossil sources. Although biodegradable plastic (PBS), and abundant fungal strains were associated with PCL at
completely degrades in industrial composting facilities,11 it also 50 C.140 Poly(p-dioxanone) exhibited greater degradation (441
generates MPs if leaked into the environment.136,137 A model 326 and 2103 131 item per g plastic in air and soil, respec-
study also conrmed that biodegradable mulch made of poly- tively) compared to bioplastic blends and non-biodegradable
butyrate adipate-co-terephthalate (PBAT) and non- plastics. However, poly(p-dioxanone) generated numerous
biodegradable mulch made of low-density polyethylene MPs aer degradation.143 The soil microbiome is also inu-
(LDPE) generate MPs and NPs if weathered.138 For example, enced by plastic pollution in terrestrial ecosystems.144
biodegradable plastics such as polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) in Plant growth depends on the type of MPs and the concen-
a representative abiotic environment generated MPs and NPs, tration of MPs in soil because of the alteration of soil
Fig. 5Atmospheric deposition of MPs in the terrestrial ecosystem, their effect on soil properties and feedbacks to the atmosphere [adapted with
permission from ref. 125, Copyright 2020, American Association for the Advancement of Science].
stability.17,145–147 For example, the presence of MPs from PLA enhance the degradation of biodegradable plastics in soil.155
lowered germination and shoot growth of ryegrass more than Consequently, innovative pre-treatment coupled with techno-
MPs from high-density polyethylene (HDPE).17 In another logical advances could enhance the degradability of waste
experimental study, different MP particles were mixed with soil plastics. Although the biodegradation process can reduce the
and then seeds were sown to study the germination rates and problems associated with waste plastic, it may need in-depth
shoot growth of Lepidium sativum, a fast-growing herbaceous studies to conrm whether biodegradation processes elimi-
plant. The study revealed that MPs produced oxidative burst in nate MPs or NPs from the ecosystems.
plants and among the tested MPs (PP: polypropylene, PE:
polyethylene, PVC: polyvinyl chloride, and a mixture of PE &
PVC), PVC had more effect on plant biometric parameters Microplastics in food systems
(germination, leaf number, plant height and biomass produc- Plastics leak into the ecosystems fragment into microplastics
tions) than other MPs.145 A strong correlation was observed (MPs) or nanoplastics (NPs), which are then ingested by
between the metal content in MPs and the number of MP terrestrial and aquatic biota and contaminate our food
particles, indicating that the abundance of MPs inuences the systems.156 For example, plant-root systems, especially vegeta-
heavy metal content. In contrast, interaction between cadmium bles, absorb ne plastic particles (0.2 mm), which then migrate
and MPs from PE has been reported to affect root symbiosis; to the shoots; thus, they are very likely to enter into food
however, no interaction between MPs from PLA and cadmium systems.157,158 MPs were found in crops (such as lettuce) grown
was noted, but PLA produced stronger phytotoxicity.148 Conse- in hydroponic systems and sand metrics irrigated with waste-
quently, it seems that the coexistence of heavy metals and MPs water containing plastic components, thus transferring into
in soil jointly affects root symbiosis and plant performance; food chains.159 Phthalate esters (PAEs) have also been observed
thus, becoming an alarming threat to soil biodiversity and in wheat grains grown on contaminated soil.125 Through edible
agroecosystems.148,149 plants (fruits and vegetables), the estimated MP intake was 80 g
A comparative experimental study between MPs from LDPE per person per day.160 In Portugal, MP was detected in 49% of
and biodegradable plastic (starch-based plastic) mulch revealed the sh that were analyzed, and 0.054 0.099 MP pieces per g of
that MPs from biodegradable plastic mulch have a stronger dorsal muscle were observed.161 On the other hand, only 3 MPs
negative impact on wheat growth than PE mulch, which might were observed in the gastrointestinal tracts of hamour sh from
be because biodegradable plastic mulch contains 18.3% poly- Kuwait Bay and southern areas.162 The estimated intake by
butylene terephthalate and 44.6% PET, which stops starch- adults was 842 MP particles per year only from sh consump-
induced nitrogen movement.16 Another study on the adsorption in Portugal; however, in Europe and America, it varied from
tion and desorption kinetics of PE and PHB MPs also conrmed 518–3078 MP items per capita per year.161 However, the effect of
that triclosan (a common disinfectant used in plastics) equi- MPs present in sh is reported to be negligible on human
librium adsorption and desorption rates of PE is greater than health.163 Another study also conrmed that no health risk was
that of PHB (3431.85 and 9442.27 mg g1, respectively), and PHB associated with sh consumption when the PAE concentration
easily releases it compared with PE.150 in sh was 0.15–0.26 mg g1.164
On the other hand, an experimental study revealed that the The increasing application of plastic in the food industry,
presence of MPs in soil enhanced the shoot and root mass of an especially in food and beverage packaging, results in food
invasive species with drought because MPs in soil helped contamination with MPs/NPs. For example, MPs were identied
reduce soil bulk density facilitating better aeration, water in bottled water and were argued to be released from packaging
holding capacity, and root penetration; thus, they could rapidly and coating as well as from the lubricant used on the
reach limited water resources which enhanced the productivity caps.91,165,166 On average, 325 MP particles per litre of bottled
of invasive species.151 The growth of spring onion depended on water were identied where 95% of these particles were 6.5–100
the type of MPs. For example, total biomass growth of spring mm and 10.4 particles were found to be greater than 100 mm
onion was better in the presence of primary polyamide (PA) and where the most common morphology was fragments followed
polyester compared with polystyrene (PS) and PET because of by bres.91 The authors conrmed that the packaging/bottling
the difference in their composition, i.e., PA contains nitrogen process is the main source of MPs in bottled water. MP
which may have enhanced biomass growth; however, the contamination has also been identied in groundwater,167
authors warn that a positive effect of MPs on plants cannot be freshwater, and drinking water (groundwater/supply
ascertained.152 Consequently, it is essential to differentiate water).168,169
between the potential impacts of MPs and macroplastics in Melanophores and pigmentation were found in the skin of
soil.34 The increasing MP contamination in terrestrial ecosys- tadpoles (larval stage of an amphibian) exposed to polyethylene
tems may reduce global food production; thus, food security, (PE) MPs (60 mg L1 for 7 days) and external morphological
one of the major world challenges, has to be addressed in the changes were observed.78 The animal model trial conrmed the
near future. presence of MPs in aquatic animals and their effect on
Biodegradation (degradation by using microorganisms/ productivity.78,161 MPs were also detected in earthworms and
enzymes) of pretreated (grinding/irradiation) plastic is noted chickens raised on contaminated garden soil (74.4 20.4 PE
to be a potential route to reduce the problems associated with bottles per m2); however, in the case of chickens, MPs were
waste plastics.153,154 It is also noted that earthworms can found only in gizzards and feces.170 Exposure to microbers for
28 days injured the gastrointestinal walls of snails and reduced Nations Environment Programme to eliminate primary sources
their food intake.171 In addition, a toxicological study revealed of plastic litter by 2022.156 The European Union has enacted
that mice could ingest MPs and accumulate them in tissues, several regulations such as ‘Water Framework Directive’ (a
which may affect terrestrial food systems and human health.172 directive formulated to expand the scope of water protection to
MPs were also detected in marine foods, such as shellsh, all waters, achieving good status by a set deadline based on river
salt, etc. and affect animals, e.g., birds,162,173–175 and human basins’ combined approach of emission limits and stream-
health.92 For example, MPs (>149 mm) were detected in lining the legislation) and the Common Fisheries Policy to abate
commercial salts from different countries176,177 and in edible chemical and nutrient pollution in aquatic systems. On the
bivalves such as oysters, mussels, and clams.178 The concen- other hand, Integrated Coastal Zone Management and the
tration of MPs in blue mussels was reported to be greater than Marine Strategy Framework Directive were implemented to
that in wild mussels because of the difference in MP concen- control MP pollution.156 Life cycle economy and life cycle
tration in their surrounding environment.179,180 The presence of assessment were introduced for the design, production, use,
MPs in honey and sugar has also been reported.19,181 On average, and recycling of plastic products.156 Sol–gel induced agglomer-
9 9 bres per kg to 166 147 bres per kg of honey were ation has also been introduced to remove MPs from the aquatic
found in different countries.19,182 Thus, it seems that all system.186 Air puriers have been introduced to remove MPs
segments of human interaction are affected by MP pollution. from air (>0.1 mm) in order to improve indoor air quality.187 On
Although biodegradable plastic is recognized as an ecolog- the other hand, fungi were used as a potential remedy to
ical alternative to synthetic plastic, NPs i.e., polyhydroxybutyrate degrade MPs in soil.188 In addition, clean-up drives are ongoing
(PHB) released into freshwater ecosystems as a result of the to minimize terrestrial and aquatic plastic pollution.
degradation of biodegradable plastics in the environment were
harmful and reduced cellular growth and altered physiological Impacts of waste plastics/microplastics
parameters of organisms.139 In contrast, no signicant oxidative
stress of polylactic acid (PLA) MPs (sizes: 0.8–10 mm) was Environmental impacts
observed in blue mussels during the 8 days of trial while MP Assessing the environmental impacts of microplastics (MPs) is
concentrations were controlled at 10 and 100 mg L1.183 difficult because of changes in ecosystem functions, hazardous
However, the World Health Organization (WHO) noted that impacts on biota, and varying toxicities induced by their
most plants and soil organisms are unlikely to uptake MPs >150 composition.54,57 It also argued that the ecological effect of MPs
mm, except mesofauna, and the human body does not absorb is yet to be well understood and related data is scarce.189
these MPs;169 thus, they do not pose a risk to human health. However, a recent study revealed that under composting envi-
These MPs may pose a health risk if contaminated with toxic ronments, unweathered PBAT-enriched mulch released higher
chemicals or additives. It seems that crops, livestock and amounts of CO2 than weathered biodegradable mulch because
beverages are contaminated by MPs, whether raised on farm- environmental weathering enhanced the degradation of
land, greenhouse, or home-garden; thus, waste management biodegradable mulch.11 The authors also conrmed that the
could be vital in reducing MP contamination in food chains and microbial degradation of mulches is inuenced by their poly-
abating environmental and health risks as well as food meric constituents. For example, microbial degradation of
insecurity. biodegradable mulch is more persistent in bacterial commu-
nities than in fungal communities.11
The Canadian landll sector generated about 13 million
Initiatives to mitigate plastic/ tonnes of GHG from landll waste (CO2 eq) in 2018.190 Annually,
microplastic pollution the agricultural plastic recycling program can mitigate 20 000
tonnes-CO2 eq in Ontario.191 The environmental impact of
In an attempt to combat increasing plastic pollution, various plastic used in consumer goods was 6.7 t CO2 eq per tonne of
initiatives (improved waste management, wastewater treat- plastic used.1 The environmental impacts of plastic production
ment, innovative design and development, etc.), and regula- and disposal also depend on the type of plastic and disposal
tions57 for single-use plastics and industrial use of microbeads methods (Tables 1 and 2). For example, a comparative life cycle
(such as bans or phasedowns or restricted use of single-use study on mixed plastic waste was conducted under three
plastics; banning the use of microbeads in personal care perspectives: product, disposal, and combination of both
products, etc.), were enacted to control plastic pollution.57,184 (entire life cycle). In the case of disposal (chemical recycling via
Countries and regions have banned the industrial use of plastic pyrolysis and mechanical recycling with energy recovery and
microbeads and agreed to phase them out. For example, the compared with virgin plastic), chemical recycling had a 50%
United States of America (USA), Canada, and the United lower climate change impact compared with mechanical recy-
Kingdom (UK) have banned the industrial use of plastic cling. Although the climate change impact was similar when the
microbeads in 2015, 2017, and 2018, respectively.57,185 In the quality of the recyclate was considered, other impact categories
cases of the USA and the UK, the ban was imposed on the use of (acidication, eutrophication, human toxicity, etc.) were higher
microbeads in rinse-off personal care products.57 At the same in the case of chemical recycling.192 However, chemical recy-
time, the circular economy initiative is promoting a zero-waste cling released a lesser amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) (2.3 t
approach. A global campaign has been initiated by the United CO2 eq per tonne less) than virgin plastics which can be
Table 1 Impacts associated with the primary production of selected plastics/tonne [adapted from ref. 194]a
Impact category
GWP, kg ADP, kg Sb
Types of plastic Process energy, MJ CO2 eq eq AP, kg SO2 eq EP, kg PO4+ eq HTP, kg 1,4-DB eq
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) 43 336 2468 33 12 3 735

High density polyethylene (HDPE) 26 399 1891 33 21 1 67
Polypropylene (PP) 24 396 1999 33 20 1 50
Polystyrene (PS) 43 587 2776 38 17 2 55
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) 38 841 1336 18 10 1 151
a
GWP: global warming potential; ADP: abiotic depletion potential (abiotic depletion refers to the depletion of nonliving resources such as fossil
fuels, minerals, clay, and peat); AP: acidication potential; EP: eutrophication potential; HTP: human toxicity potential.
Table 2 Environmental impacts of different disposal scenarios of plastic waste/tonne [adapted with permission from ref. 195, Copyright Elsevier,
2021]a
Impact category/tonne
Energy, GWP, kg ODP, kg ADP, kg Sb AP, kg SO2 EP, kg HTP, kg 1,4- TE, kg 1,4- ME, kg 1,4- PO, kg
Feedstock Scenario MJ CO2 eq CFC-11 eq eq eq PO4+ eq DB eq DB eq DB eq C2H4 eq
PET A 5.65 103 2.89 103 8.34 106 2.58 104 4.33 101 3.58 1.41 102 1.68 8.56 105 2.39
B 1.62 104 6.23 103 2.80 105 8.25 104 5.18 101 5.42 5.13 102 2.42 2.40 106 2.68
C 7.02 103 8.73 102 3.60 106 1.85 103 8.19 100 1.16 1.78 102 4.73 5.05 105 3.97
101
D 1.08 104 4.94 103 2.80 105 8.25 104 3.73 101 4.88 4.79 102 5.71 2.33 10 2.10
6
PE A 1.05 104 3.82 103 1.28 105 3.89 104 5.77 100 1.39 2.62 102 1.23 1.23 106 4.98
101
B 2.11 104 6.76 103 3.30 105 9.65 104 1.30 101 3.15 6.74 102 1.14 2.78 106 9.45
C 2.96 103 5.87 102 5.10 106 5.62 102 2.56 100 6.25 1.07 102 4.70 9.50 104 1.16
101
D 3.93 104 3.94 103 3.30 105 9.65 104 1.88 101 1.95 6.01 102 5.62 2.63 10 8.19
6
a
PET: polyethylene terephthalate; PE: polyethylene; A: landlling without biogas recovery; B: incineration without energy recovery; C: recycling; D:
incineration with energy recovery; GWP: global warming potential; ODP: ozone depletion potential; ADP: abiotic depletion potential; AP:
acidication potential; EP: eutrophication potential; HTP: human toxicity potential; TE: terrestrial ecotoxicity; ME: marine ecotoxicity; PO:
photochemical oxidation.
environmentally benecial because the climate change impact Economic impacts

of the recyclate from chemical recycling was 0.45 t CO2 eq per
The global market for plastic recycling was $33.0 billion in 2020
tonne while it was 1.89 t CO2 eq per tonne of virgin plastic.192 In
and is expected to be $47.3 billion in 2026.196 Waste plastic
another study, Khoo compared various waste disposal scenarios
causes severe economic damage to the world's marine ecosys-
(combinations of mechanical recycling, incineration, pyrolysis,
tems and the yearly damage is estimated to be $13.0 billion.44
etc.) of mixed plastic and concluded that a combination of
The waste management cost also depends on the disposal
mechanical recycling (10%), incineration (83%) and pyrolysis processes. For example, the economic cost of household waste
(7%) was environmentally better among the considered
that is burned or dumped is reported to be $375 per tonne;
scenarios, while the worst combination was mechanical recy-
however, in the case of integrated waste management, the cost
cling (11%), incineration (71%), and gasication (18%).193 The
fell to $50–$100 per tonne.5 In Canada, the tipping fee for plastic
author also noted that for individual waste disposal of mixed
waste disposal to landlls varies from $80–$160 per tonne.197
plastics, pyrolysis performed better than incineration but
Waste management sectors in Canada employed 29 543
poorer than mechanical recycling or gasication.193 It seems
persons, spent $5.9 billion and generated $7.1 billion in 2014;198
that the mixed plastic waste disposal process plays an impor-
however, waste collection costs reached $5.9 billion in 2019.199
tant role in the life cycle of plastic. Although the persistent In Canada, plastic waste entails a lost opportunity of about $7.8
presence of MPs in the ecosystems poses a potential risk to all
billion in 2016 and is expected to be $11.1 billion by 2030.9 The
biota on the earth through soil, water, and food systems, studies
Canadian plastic market was about $35 billion in 2017.9 About
on the environmental impacts of MP pollution are scarce.
2434 industries were engaged in the processing of synthetic
Therefore, scientic studies on the environmental impacts are
resins to produce plastic products, employing 77 400 people
essential to determine the environmental severity of MP pollu-
and generating a shipment value of $19.6 billion in 2012.200
tion and abate its potential risks.
A hypothetical study noted that the yearly environmental health effects.211 At subcellular levels, biochemical changes
cost of consumer goods made of plastics on the earth was $113 precede changes to cells and tissues, which affect physiological
billion, and transportation of plastic goods contributed $53 functions, tness and ultimately ecosystems.58 Behavioural
billion,1 where the environmentally extended input–output change at different subcellular levels can be used as an indi-
(EEI-O) model was used. It is worth mentioning that the results cator of the effects of MPs on ecosystems and food systems, and
of an input–output model vary with the market price of mate- thus the human health and social impacts.
rials. These environmental costs can be mitigated by adopting MP ingestion by birds, such as chicks, disrupts nutrient
an innovative packaging design, fuel-efficient transport, more absorption, growth, and reproductive systems and ultimately
sustainable electricity, and improved waste management. threatens their survival.212 Ingestion of plastic-derived chem-
Improved waste management can save 30% of environmental icals accumulated in MPs results in various toxicological effects
costs.1 The environmental cost of plastic in-land and water such as metabolic disorders, inhibition of reproduction and
pollutants was $362 and $626 per tonne, respectively.1 growth, inammatory responses, and even death of aquatic and
terrestrial biota.213–216 Wheat grains grown on MP contaminated
farmland (containing PAEs 4.1–12.6 mg kg1) posed a higher
Societal impacts carcinogenic risk for adults as they exceeded the recommended
Plastic mulch releases phthalic acid esters (PAEs) into the soil, intake of PAEs. The contaminated wheat intake also exhibited
which are known to be toxic and carcinogenic;201–204 thus, pro- non-carcinogenic risk, and children were the most sensitive.125
longed exposure may severely affect human health124,202,205–207 In addition, it is an alarming signal that invasive species such as
and pose a threat to ecosystems. However, it is noteworthy to ryegrass dominate in the presence of MPs in soil under drought;
mention that all PAEs may not be carcinogenic to human thus, the risk of degrading biodiversity prevails if we fail to
health. For example, dermal exposure to diethyl phthalate had address MP pollution. Consequently, it is very important to nd
no carcinogenic effect in rats.208 Growing health and environ- potential remedies to MP pollution in our ecosystems to work
mental concerns are also leading to increasing consumption of towards a sustainable society.
plant-originated food; thus, may increase microplastic (MP)
consumption through sh and plant food, which may create Microplastic remediation
a severe health problem in the near future. Hale et al. noted that
MPs <20 mm penetrate cell membranes and exposures to MPs Various methods, such as advanced oxidation processes,31,217–219
compromised the feeding, metabolic and reproduction photocatalysis,220 microwave221 and bioremediation222–226 have
processes of organisms.28 MPs ingested by many marine species been employed to degrade/eliminate microplastics (MPs) from
such as sh and shellsh create physiological problems for soil and water (Fig. 6). In a photocatalysis process, plastic
them.25 Consumption of MP contaminated food and exposure particles degrade and form cavities around the catalysts initi-
to phthalates in toys resulted in congenital diseases, cancers, ating oxidation, generating carbonyl and carboxyl groups which
and affected neurological and reproductive systems.209,210 In are eventually photooxidised into volatile organics, CO2 and
addition, the Trojan horse effect of MPs makes MP contami- H2O.31,227 The microwave-assisted catalytic (iron-based catalyst)
nated food more hazardous to human health. Interactions process required only 30–90 s to convert ground plastic into
between biota and MPs are prevalent in ecosystems. There is hydrogen and predominantly carbon nanotubes.221 On the other
growing evidence that exposure to MPs can incite signicant hand, the photocatalysis process (Nb2O5) completely converted
Fig. 6 An overview of microplastic remediation technologies.
Fig. 7 A potential route of microplastic remediation from ecosystems.
plastic waste into CO2 in a simulated natural environment and microalgae can synthesize plastic polymers while using them as
produced CH3COOH without applying sacricial agents.220 a carbon source.233 The authors also argued that biodegradable
Kang et al. noted that carbocatalytic oxidation coupled with plastics can be produced by using microalgae which can replace
hydrothermal hydrolysis over carbon nanotubes generated synthetic plastics;233,234 the algal cell growth was greater than
highly reactive radicals and decomposed MPs into harmless terrestrial plants.234
organic compounds, which can be a carbon source for algae for Biodegradable plastics are regarded as safer than synthetic
complete mineralization of MPs from water.217 Membrane plastics225 and more prone to microorganisms;143 thus, adopting
technologies have also been used as a remedy for MP/ biodegradable plastics and microbial degradation of plastic
nanoplastic (NP) pollution in water; however, they need to be waste would be a potential remedy to MP/NP pollution. In
improved and employ advanced technology to remove particles addition, it is also argued that biodegradable microbeads
smaller than 100 mm.228 Agglomeration and coagulation (chito-beads) used in cosmetics exhibited greater cleansing
processes have also been used to form larger particles to facil- efficiency than polyethylene (PE) microbeads and completely
itate the removal of MPs from water;229–231 however, the removal degraded in soil into CO2, H2O and biomass without any toxic
efficiency depends on the size of MPs.230 It seems that catalytic effects on plants.235 Consequently, the development of biode-
processes can convert plastics into nanocarbons or hydrocar- gradable plastics and engineered microorganisms which can
bons, and other processes can facilitate the removal process, easily convert plastic particles either from conventional plastics
which would not be a suitable remedy for MPs/NPs that are or biodegradable plastics and mineralize them would be the key
already in our ecosystems due to their wide distribution and to MP/NP remediation; thus, they could be environmentally
particle size. benign. Fig. 7 represents a potential route to eliminate MPs/NPs
Several studies have conrmed the ability of microorganisms from the ecosystem and promote the biobased circular
to remove MPs/NPs (either synthetic or biodegradable) from soil economy initiative without interrupting the benets of plastics.
or water.223–226,232 There are four steps in the bioremediation Both terrestrial and aquatic plants absorb MPs/NPs from their
process of plastics: biodeterioration, biofragmentation, assim- surrounding environment. On the other hand, microorganisms
ilation and mineralization. Microbes rst enforce physico- convert MPs/NPs into CO2, H2O, and CH4. Some of these
chemical deterioration, followed by fragmentation of polymers products are used by plants; thus, bioremediation coupled with
into oligomers and monomers using exoenzymes, integration of non-edible plant cultivation in the terrestrial ecosystem and
molecules into microbial metabolism, and nally, the ejection algae in the aquatic ecosystem, and producing biodegradable
of oxidized metabolites.223 Exoenzymes (oxygenases) destabilize plastic from these biomasses would be a potential route to
the long carbon-hydrogen chains of polymers and can add eliminate MP/NP pollution from the environment.
oxygen, forming alcohol, peroxyl, and carboxylic compounds.
These compounds are then assimilated and mineralized by the
microbial metabolic process.223 Discussion
It is also noted that low-density polyethylene (LDPE), which Plastic particles keep changing and migrating from one
can go through the gut of earthworms (bacterial consortium: ecosystem to another contaminating every sector of human
Lumbricus terrestris), reduces the size of MPs within 4 weeks,224 interaction. Ultimately, microplastics (MPs) are affecting biota
which indicates that earthworms facilitate the degradation in various ecosystems and entering our food systems which
process of plastics. In another development, it was reported that affect animal and human health. Fig. 8 shows an overview of the
Fig. 8 Schematic of the sources of waste plastics and their transportation routes.
sources of MPs, their transportation routes and their interac- environmental impacts. Although MPs/NPs are identied to be
tion among ecosystems. To mitigate the problems associated an emerging threat to the ecosystems, it seems that huge
with waste plastics, numerous efforts are underway to replace challenges, such as methods of analysis, need to be addressed
conventional plastic with an alternative such as biodegradable before a comprehensive life cycle assessment (LCA) study on
plastic. Although biodegradable plastics degrade faster than MPs/NPs can be conducted.
synthetic plastics, the fate of biodegradable plastics seems to be Although enormous efforts are underway to mitigate plastic
understudied. Consequently, the fate of MPs from biodegrad- pollution such as clean-up drives, design and development,
able plastics and their ecological risks need to be ascertained to directives/regulations, and awareness programs, which might
control the plastic pollution in the ecosystems, especially in be useful to reduce some of the plastic pollution through
terrestrial ecosystems where biodegradable plastics are gaining a removal process, it would be difficult to do so because of the
more attention. wide range of distribution and size of MPs/NPs. Various other
A potential option for sustainable management of MPs in efforts are also underway to nd a potential remedy to MP/NP
biosolid and to mitigate their effects on the terrestrial pollution in our ecosystems. It seems that bioremediation
ecosystem would be its alternative use instead of farm appli- would be a potential solution to eliminate the MPs/NPs from
cation, such as the use of biosolid in the bio-brick the environment. However, without joint action (citizen and
manufacturing process.118 As plant root systems absorbed government, national and international) in design, develop-
plastic particles from soil157 and then migrated to leaves,158 ment, manufacture, use, disposal, best management practice,
growing non-edible plants in contaminated soil and water could and stringent policies, plastic pollution will likely worsen.
also be an option to reduce MPs from contaminated soil and Initiatives can be extended in the following areas to mitigate/
water to abate adverse impacts of MPs on the ecosystem and eliminate plastic pollution in ecosystems.
health. Identify the hotspots in every sector (residential, industrial,
Despite the fact that MPs are found in every segment of agriculture/soil/terrestrial, and aquatic systems).
ecosystems, their quantication and remediation methods are Develop more effective and efficient remediation methods.
yet to be standardized. Consequently, it would be an important Denitive policies/regulations.
task to build consensus on the identication, quantication Ensure a system approach to avoid/mitigate plastic pollu-
and remediation of MPs/nanoplastics (NPs) at a national and tion from each source.
international level. In addition, impact indicators for MPs/NPs Develop alternative products to conventional plastics
are yet to be developed and standardized for evaluating their (compostable plastic, which would not produce any toxic
chemicals/MPs). Or even develop an alternative to plastic Provide evidence of MP/NP free alternatives to conven-
mulch, which can be used for a certain period without tional plastic to environmental activists, policymakers and end-
generating/releasing MPs during its use and then disposed of in users, which may accelerate the eradication process of MPs/NPs
a way that can be sustainable (controlled distribution & from ecosystems and resolve some of the evolving problems
disposal) to abate plastic pollution in agricultural soil and, associated with them.
further, in the ecosystems.
Abbreviations
Outlook
Nowadays, microplastic (MP) pollution is recognized as an ADP Abiotic depletion potential
emerging problem. Environmental, economic, and societal AP Acidication potential
concerns over the effect of microplastic pollution on ecosystems BPA Bisphenol A
have attracted enormous attention from all sectors (public, DOC Dissolved organic carbon
policymakers, environmental activists, and scientic commu- DOM Dissolved organic matter
EDCs Endocrine-disrupting
nities) for research on alternatives and potential remediation
EEI-O Environmentally extended input–output
pathways. MPs in terrestrial, aquatic, and food systems absorb
EP Eutrophication potential
hazardous contaminants, which affect soil quality and
GHG Greenhouse gas
productivity as well as aquatic and terrestrial animals, plants
GWP Global warming potential
and human health. Although enormous efforts are underway to
HDPE High-density polyethylene
replace synthetic plastic with biodegradable plastic to abate HTP Human toxicity potential
plastic pollution in ecosystems, further attention needs to be LDPE Low-density polyethylene
paid to avoid the adverse impact of MPs/nanoplastics (NPs) ME Marine ecotoxicity
from biodegradable plastics in order to avoid any unwanted risk MPs Microplastics
to the environment and human health. Adverse impacts of MPs/ MSW Municipal solid waste
NPs were reported for both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems; NPs Nanoplastics
however, terrestrial ecosystems seem to be less explored. ODP Ozone depletion potential
Consequently, comprehensive studies on terrestrial ecosystems PAEs Phthalic acid esters
and food systems are important for framing mitigating efforts PAHs Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
or even eradicating the problems associated with MPs/NPs. We PBAT Polybutyrate adipate-co-terephthalate
have compiled information on microplastic pollution in PBDEs Polybrominated diphenyl ethers
ecosystems and food chains, emphasizing the terrestrial PBSA Polybutylene succinate-co-butylene adipate
ecosystem, recent technological advances, economic and soci- PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls
etal implications, and the remediation of microplastic pollu- PCL Polycaprolactone
tion. From this compilation, a potential remediation pathway PE Polyethylene
has been outlined. PET Polyethylene terephthalate
PHA Polyhydroxyalkanoate
PLA Polylactic acid
Conclusions PO Photochemical oxidation
POM Particle organic matter
Bioremediation could be a potential solution to the problems
PP Polypropylene
associated with MPs/NPs. However, their identication and
PS Polystyrene
quantication methods are yet to be standardized and
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
consensus needs to be built on them, which can facilitate the
TE Terrestrial ecotoxicity
development process of impact indicators for MPs/NPs; thus, UK United Kingdom
evaluating their environmental impacts. Biodegradable plastics USA United States of America
that are produced from non-edible biomass such as algae can be WHO World Health Organization
a potential pathway to eradicate MP pollution for sustainable WWTPs Wastewater treatment plants
ecosystems. In addition, efforts can be as follows, along with
minimizing plastic littering and regulatory efforts to mitigate
MP pollution, but not limited to them. However, any innovative
attempt to mitigate or eradicate MP/NP pollution must be Author contributions
justied with a broader sustainability check to avoid any risk to
investment and the environment. Project conceptualization, methodology, administration, fund-
Design and development of alternatives to conventional ing acquisition and supervision, A. K. M. and M. M.; method-
plastics that ease plastic waste disposal while avoiding gener- ology, investigation, data analysis, writing—original dra
ating MPs/NPs during their applications. preparation, P. R.; writing—review and editing, A. K. M., M. M.
Employ an integrated approach that can eradicate the and P. R. All authors contributed to the discussion, reviews and
evolving problems associated with MPs/NPs. approval of the manuscript for publication.
9 ECCC, Economic Study of the Canadian Plastic Industry,

Conflicts of interest
Markets and Waste: Summary Report to Environment and
The authors declare that they have no known conict of interest Climate Change Canada, http://publications.gc.ca/
that could have appeared to inuence the work reported in this collections/collection_2019/eccc/En4-366-1-2019-eng.pdf,
paper. accessed October 10, 2020.
10 B. Friesen, Agricultural Waste Management in Canada, United
Acknowledgements States, New Zealand and Australia, 2018.
11 M. B. Anunciado, D. G. Hayes, A. F. Astner,
This study was nancially supported by the Ontario Ministry of L. C. Wadsworth, C. D. Cowan-Banker, J. E. L. y. Gonzalez
Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) – University of and J. M. DeBruyn, J. Polym. Environ., 2021, 1–16.
Guelph, the Bioeconomy Industrial Uses Research Program 12 B. Xu, F. Liu, Z. Cryder, D. Huang, Z. Lu, Y. He, H. Wang,
Theme (Project No. 030351, 030486, and 030578); OMAFRA – Z. Lu, P. C. Brookes and C. Tang, Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci.
University of Guelph Gryphon's Leading to the Accelerated Technol., 2020, 50, 2175–2222.
Adoption of Innovative Research (LAAIR) Program (Project No. 13 CleanFARMS, Cleanfarma Plastic Recycling Project to be
030416); OMAFRA – Ontario Agri-Food Research Initiative Ramped up, https://www.greenhousecanada.com/
(Project No. 055217); the Ontario Ministry of Economic Devel- cleanfarms-plastic-recycling-project-to-be-ramped-up/,
opment, Job Creation and Trade ORF-RE09-078 (Project No. accessed October 14, 2020.
053970, 054345); the Natural Sciences and Engineering 14 GESAMP, Sources, Fate and Effects of Microplastics in the
Research Council of Canada (NSERC), Canada Research Chair Marine Environment: a Global Assessment, http://
(CRC) program Project No. 460788; and the Agriculture and 41.89.141.8/kmfri/bitstream/123456789/735/1/
Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Maple Leaf Foods, Canada and the GESAMP_microplasticsfullstudy.pdf, accessed October 12,
Bank of Montreal (BMO), Canada through Bioindustrial Inno- 2020.
vation Canada (BIC) Bioproducts AgSci Cluster Program (Project 15 M. C. Rillig, L. Ziersch and S. Hempel, Sci. Rep., 2017, 7, 1–6.
No. 054015, 054449 and 800148). 16 Y. Qi, X. Yang, A. M. Pelaez, E. H. Lwanga, N. Beriot,
H. Gertsen, P. Garbeva and V. Geissen, Sci. Total Environ.,
References 2018, 645, 1048–1056.
17 B. Boots, C. W. Russell and D. S. Green, Environ. Sci.
1 R. Lord, Plastics and Sustainability: A Valuation of Technol., 2019, 53, 11496–11506.
Environmental Benets, Costs and Opportunities for 18 P. Alexy, E. Anklam, T. Emans, A. Furfari, F. Galgani,
Continuous Improvement, https:// G. Hanke, A. Koelmans, R. Pant, H. Saveyn and B. Sokull
www.plasticpackagingfacts.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/ Kluettgen, Food Addit. Contam., Part A, 2020, 37, 1–10.
11/ACC-report-July-2016.pdf, accessed December 13, 2020. 19 B. Toussaint, B. Raffael, A. Angers-Loustau, D. Gilliland,
2 M. Garside, Global Plastic Production 1950-2018, https:// V. Kestens, M. Petrillo, I. M. Rio-Echevarria and G. Van
www.statista.com/statistics/282732/global-production-of- den Eede, Food Addit. Contam., Part A, 2019, 36, 639–673.
plastics-since-1950/, accessed October 9, 2020. 20 L. Ding, S. Zhang, X. Wang, X. Yang, C. Zhang, Y. Qi and
3 H. Ritchie, Plastic Pollution, https://ourworldindata.org/ X. Guo, Sci. Total Environ., 2020, 137525.
plastic-pollution, accessed January 5, 2021. 21 E. Watt, M. Picard, B. Maldonado, M. A. Abdelwahab,
4 Statista, Distribution of Plastic Waste Generation Worldwide D. F. Mielewski, L. T. Drzal, M. Misra and A. K. Mohanty,
in 2018, by Sector, https://www.statista.com/statistics/ RSC Adv., 2021, 11, 21447–21462.
1166582/global-plastic-waste-generation-by-sector/, 22 J. L. Conkle, C. D. B. Del Valle and J. W. Turner, Environ.
accessed October 9, 2020. Manage., 2018, 61, 1–8.
5 S. Wahba, S. Kaza, and K. M. Ionkova, A New Phenomenon – 23 P. Agamuthu, Waste Management & Research: The Journal for
Realizing Economic Growth while Cutting Waste. How?, a Sustainable Circular Economy, 2018, DOI: 10.1177/
https://blogs.worldbank.org/sustainablecities/new- 0734242X18796770.
phenomenon-realizing-economic-growth-while-cutting- 24 E. Mendenhall, Mar. Policy, 2018, 96, 291–298.
waste-how. 25 M. Smith, D. C. Love, C. M. Rochman and R. A. Neff, Curr.
6 I. Tiseo, Weight of U.S. Municipal Solid Plastic Waste Environ. Health Rep., 2018, 5, 375–386.
Generated 1960-2017, https://www.statista.com/statistics/ 26 M. B. Zobkov and E. E. Esiukova, Oceanology, 2018, 58(1),
1097290/us-plastic-waste-generation/, accessed October 9, 137–143.
2020. 27 B. Zhou, J. Wang, H. Zhang, H. Shi, Y. Fei, S. Huang,
7 ECCC, Science Assessment of Plastic Pollution, https:// Y. Tong, D. Wen, Y. Luo and D. Barceló, J. Hazard. Mater.,
www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/ 2020, 388, 121814.
evaluating-existing-substances/science-assessment-plastic- 28 R. C. Hale, M. E. Seeley, M. J. La Guardia, L. Mai and
pollution.html, accessed October 8, 2020. E. Y. Zeng, J. Geophys. Res.: Oceans, 2020, 125,
8 R. Young, Canada's Plastic Problem: Sorting Fact from Fiction, e2018JC014719.
https://oceana.ca/en/blog/canadas-plastic-problem-sorting- 29 F. Yu, C. Yang, Z. Zhu, X. Bai and J. Ma, Sci. Total Environ.,
fact-ction, accessed October 9, 2020. 2019, 694, 133643.
30 S. Freeman, A. M. Booth, I. Sabbah, R. Tiller, J. Dierking, 55 P. Bose, Microbial Degradation of Plastic Waste and the
K. Klun, A. Rotter, E. Ben-David, J. Javidpour and PETase Enzyme, https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?
D. L. Angel, J. Environ. Manage., 2020, 266, 110642. ArticleID¼19280, accessed February 9, 2021.
31 K. Hu, W. Tian, Y. Yang, G. Nie, P. Zhou, Y. Wang, X. Duan 56 A. Chamas, H. Moon, J. Zheng, Y. Qiu, T. Tabassum,
and S. Wang, Water Res., 2021, 117144. J. H. Jang, M. Abu-Omar, S. L. Scott and S. Suh, ACS
32 M. Malankowska, C. Echaide-Gorriz and J. Coronas, Sustainable Chem. Eng., 2020, 8, 3494–3511.
Environ. Sci.: Water Res. Technol., 2021, 7, 243–258. 57 M. N. Miranda, A. M. T. Silva and M. F. R. Pereira, Sci. Total
33 Y. Picó and D. Barceló, ACS Omega, 2019, 4, 6709–6719. Environ., 2020, 718, 134968.
34 R. Qi, D. L. Jones, Z. Li, Q. Liu and C. Yan, Sci. Total 58 T. S. Galloway, M. Cole and C. Lewis, Nat. Ecol. Evol., 2017,
Environ., 2020, 703, 134722. 1, 1–8.
35 J.-J. Guo, X.-P. Huang, L. Xiang, Y.-Z. Wang, Y.-W. Li, H. Li, 59 N. Khalid, M. Aqeel and A. Noman, Environ. Pollut., 2020,
Q.-Y. Cai, C.-H. Mo and M.-H. Wong, Environ. Int., 2020, 115653.
137, 105263. 60 M. Pirsaheb, H. Hossini and P. Makhdoumi, Process Saf.
36 J. Wang, X. Liu, Y. Li, T. Powell, X. Wang, G. Wang and Environ. Prot., 2020, 142, 1–4.
P. Zhang, Sci. Total Environ., 2019, 691, 848–857. 61 B. Gewert, M. M. Plassmann and M. MacLeod, Environ. Sci.:
37 W. Wang, H. Gao, S. Jin, R. Li and G. Na, Ecotoxicol. Environ. Processes Impacts, 2015, 17, 1513–1521.
Saf., 2019, 173, 110–117. 62 A. A. Shah, F. Hasan, A. Hameed and S. Ahmed, Biotechnol.
38 E. K. Arora, Macro-Plastics To Micro-Plastics – An Adv., 2008, 26, 246–265.
Uncomfortable Convenience!, NISCAIR-CSIR, India, 2018. 63 R. Wei and W. Zimmermann, Microb. Biotechnol., 2017, 10,
39 L. Arreola and J. Fulton, Microplastic Pollution in the Ocean 1308–1322.
Affecting Marine Life and its Potential Risk to Human 64 J. D. Meeker, S. Sathyanarayana and S. H. Swan, Philos.
Health, 2018. Trans. R. Soc., B, 2009, 364, 2097–2113.
40 N. J. Beaumont, M. Aanesen, M. C. Austen, T. Börger, 65 K. Pivnenko, M. K. Eriksen, J. A. Martı́n-Fernández,
J. R. Clark, M. Cole, T. Hooper, P. K. Lindeque, C. Pascoe E. Eriksson and T. F. Astrup, Waste Manage., 2016, 54, 44–
and K. J. Wyles, Mar. Pollut. Bull., 2019, 142, 189–195. 52.
41 G. Krantzberg, J. Waste Resour. Recycl., 2019, 1(1), 107. 66 H. Zhang, Q. Zhou, Z. Xie, Y. Zhou, C. Tu, C. Fu, W. Mi,
42 B. Carney Almroth and H. Eggert, Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy., R. Ebinghaus, P. Christie and Y. Luo, Sci. Total Environ.,
2020, 13(2), 317–326. 2018, 616, 1505–1512.
43 R. Geyer, J. R. Jambeck and K. L. Law, Sci. Adv., 2017, 3, 67 A. C. Godswill and A. C. Godspel, Int. J. Bioinf. Comput. Biol.,
e1700782. 2019, 4, 11–29.
44 C. Giacovelli, Single-Use Plastics: A Roadmap for 68 J. N. Hahladakis, C. A. Velis, R. Weber, E. Iacovidou and
Sustainability, 2018. P. Purnell, J. Hazard. Mater., 2018, 344, 179–199.
45 D. Calleja, Field Actions Sci. Rep., 2019, 22–27. 69 F. Nasser and I. Lynch, J. Proteomics, 2016, 137, 45–51.
46 J. Aldag, The last straw: Turning the tide on plastic 70 M. P. Johansen, E. Prentice, T. Cresswell and N. Howell, J.
pollution in Canada, Report of the Standing Committee on Environ. Radioact., 2018, 190, 130–133.
Environment and Sustainable Development, House of 71 J. T. Turner, Prog. Oceanogr., 2015, 130, 205–248.
Commons, Canada, 2019. 72 R. Trevisan, D. Uzochukwu and R. T. Di Giulio, Front.
47 J. R. Banu, V. G. Sharmila, U. Ushani, V. Amudha and Environ. Sci., 2020, 8, 78.
G. Kumar, Sci. Total Environ., 2020, 718, 137287. 73 M. Zhang and L. Xu, Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2020,
48 S. Nanda and F. Berruti, Environ. Chem. Lett., 2020, 1–26. 1–37.
49 P. Roy and A. Dutta, in Plastics to Energy, Elsevier, 2019, pp. 74 X. Guo and J. Wang, Mar. Pollut. Bull., 2019, 142, 1–14.
377–402. 75 G. Liu, Z. Zhu, Y. Yang, Y. Sun, F. Yu and J. Ma, Environ.
50 H. W. Ryu, D. H. Kim, J. Jae, S. S. Lam, E. D. Park and Pollut., 2019, 246, 26–33.
Y.-K. Park, Bioresour. Technol., 2020, 123473. 76 J. Li, K. Zhang and H. Zhang, Environ. Pollut., 2018, 237,
51 M. S. Qureshi, A. Oasmaa, H. Pihkola, I. Deviatkin, 460–467.
A. Tenhunen, J. Mannila, H. Minkkinen, M. Pohjakallio 77 M. A. Pascall, M. E. Zabik, M. J. Zabik and R. J. Hernandez, J.
and J. Laine-Ylijoki, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis, 2020, 152, Agric. Food Chem., 2005, 53, 164–169.
104804. 78 A. P. da Costa Araújo, N. F. S. de Melo, A. G. de Oliveira
52 M. Liu, S. Lu, Y. Song, L. Lei, J. Hu, W. Lv, W. Zhou, C. Cao, Junior, F. P. Rodrigues, T. Fernandes, J. E. de Andrade
H. Shi and X. Yang, Environ. Pollut., 2018, 242, 855–862. Vieira, T. L. Rocha and G. Malafaia, J. Hazard. Mater.,
53 E.-L. Ng, E. H. Lwanga, S. M. Eldridge, P. Johnston, 2020, 382, 121066.
H.-W. Hu, V. Geissen and D. Chen, Sci. Total Environ., 79 G. Renner, T. C. Schmidt and J. Schram, Curr. Opin. Environ.
2018, 627, 1377–1388. Sci. Health, 2018, 1, 55–61.
54 M. Wagner and S. Lambert, Freshwater Microplastics: 80 S. Zhang, J. Wang, X. Liu, F. Qu, X. Wang, X. Wang, Y. Li and
Emerging Environmental Contaminants?, Springer Nature, Y. Sun, TrAC, Trends Anal. Chem., 2019, 111, 62–72.
2018. 81 E. Dümichen, P. Eisentraut, C. G. Bannick, A.-K. Barthel,
R. Senz and U. Braun, Chemosphere, 2017, 174, 572–584.
82 Z. Steinmetz, A. Kintzi, K. Muñoz and G. E. Schaumann, J. 105 R. M. Blair, S. Waldron, V. R. Phoenix and C. Gauchotte-
Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis, 2020, 147, 104803. Lindsay, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 2019, 26, 12491–12504.
83 A. Käppler, D. Fischer, S. Oberbeckmann, G. Schernewski, 106 K. R. Vanapalli, B. K. Dubey, A. K. Sarmah and
M. Labrenz, K.-J. Eichhorn and B. Voit, Anal. Bioanal. J. Bhattacharya, Case Stud. Chem. Environ. Eng., 2021, 3,
Chem., 2016, 408, 8377–8391. 100071.
84 S. Huppertsberg and T. P. Knepper, Anal. Bioanal. Chem., 107 P. J. Thomas, R. Oral, G. Pagano, S. Tez, M. Toscanesi,
2018, 410, 6343–6352. P. Ranieri, M. Trifuoggi and D. M. Lyons, Mar. Environ.
85 G. Gourmelon, Global Plastic Production Rises, Recycling Res., 2020, 161, 105132.
Lags, https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2015/01/ 108 L.-Z. Zuo, H.-X. Li, L. Lin, Y.-X. Sun, Z.-H. Diao, S. Liu,
28/global-plastic-production-rises-recycling-lags, accessed Z.-Y. Zhang and X.-R. Xu, Chemosphere, 2019, 215, 25–32.
October 21, 2020. 109 A. A. Horton, A. Walton, D. J. Spurgeon, E. Lahive and
86 J. R. Jambeck, R. Geyer, C. Wilcox, T. R. Siegler, C. Svendsen, Sci. Total Environ., 2017, 586, 127–141.
M. Perryman, A. Andrady, R. Narayan and K. L. Law, 110 L. Nizzetto, M. Futter and S. Langaas, Environ. Sci. Technol.,
Science, 2015, 347, 768–771. 2016, 10777–10779.
87 Sloactive, Plastic Pollution, https://sloactive.com/plastic- 111 C. M. Rochman, Science, 2018, 360, 28–29.
pollution/, accessed October 21, 2020. 112 F. Corradini, P. Meza, R. Eguiluz, F. Casado, E. Huerta-
88 E. J. Carpenter, S. J. Anderson, G. R. Harvey, H. P. Miklas Lwanga and V. Geissen, Sci. Total Environ., 2019, 671,
and B. B. Peck, Science, 1972, 178, 749–750. 411–420.
89 A. Isobe, K. Uchida, T. Tokai and S. Iwasaki, Mar. Pollut. 113 R. R. Hurley and L. Nizzetto, Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health,
Bull., 2015, 101, 618–623. 2018, 1, 6–11.
90 R. W. Obbard, S. Sadri, Y. Q. Wong, A. A. Khitun, I. Baker 114 P. van den Berg, E. Huerta-Lwanga, F. Corradini and
and R. C. Thompson, Earth's Future, 2014, 2, 315–320. V. Geissen, Environ. Pollut., 2020, 261, 114198.
91 S. A. Mason, V. G. Welch and J. Neratko, Front. Chem., 2018, 115 C. M. Rochman and T. Hoellein, Science, 2020, 368, 1184–
6, 407. 1185.
92 R. K. Naik, M. M. Naik, P. M. D'Costa and F. Shaikh, Mar. 116 J. Crossman, R. R. Hurley, M. Futter and L. Nizzetto, Sci.
Pollut. Bull., 2019, 149, 110525. Total Environ., 2020, 724, 138334.
93 S. Allen, D. Allen, V. R. Phoenix, G. Le Roux, P. D. Jiménez, 117 X. Ren, J. Tang, C. Yu and J. He, J. Agro-Environ. Sci., 2018,
A. Simonneau, S. Binet and D. Galop, Nat. Geosci., 2019, 12, 37, 1045–1058.
339–344. 118 A. Mohajerani and B. Karabatak, Waste Manage., 2020, 107,
94 F. Belzagui, M. Crespi, A. Álvarez, C. Gutiérrez-Bouzán and 252–265.
M. Vilaseca, Environ. Pollut., 2019, 248, 1028–1035. 119 Y. Changrong, H. Wenqing and C. Neil, World Agric., 2014,
95 C. K. M. Chan, C. Park, K. M. Chan, D. C. W. Mak, 4, 32–36.
J. K. H. Fang and D. M. Mitrano, Environ. Chem., 2021, 120 M. Scheurer and M. Bigalke, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2018, 52,
8(3), 93–100. 3591–3598.
96 L. Hou, D. Kumar, C. G. Yoo, I. Gitsov and 121 S. Zhang, X. Yang, H. Gertsen, P. Peters, T. Salánki and
E. L.-W. Majumder, Chem. Eng. J., 2021, 406, 126715. V. Geissen, Sci. Total Environ., 2018, 616, 1056–1065.
97 S. Uddin, S. W. Fowler and M. Behbehani, Mar. Pollut. Bull., 122 Y. Huang, Q. Liu, W. Jia, C. Yan and J. Wang, Environ.
2020, 160, 111538. Pollut., 2020, 260, 114096.
98 F. De Falco, M. Cocca, V. Guarino, G. Gentile, V. Ambrogi, 123 D. He, Y. Luo, S. Lu, M. Liu, Y. Song and L. Lei, TrAC, Trends
L. Ambrosio and M. Avella, Polym. Degrad. Stab., 2019, Anal. Chem., 2018, 109, 163–172.
165, 110–116. 124 L. He, G. Gielen, N. S. Bolan, X. Zhang, H. Qin, H. Huang
99 M. Bergmann, V. Wirzberger, T. Krumpen, C. Lorenz, and H. Wang, Agron. Sustainable Dev., 2015, 35, 519–534.
S. Primpke, M. B. Tekman and G. Gerdts, Environ. Sci. 125 M. Shi, Y. Sun, Z. Wang, G. He, H. Quan and H. He, Environ.
Technol., 2017, 51, 11000–11010. Pollut., 2019, 250, 1–7.
100 M. Eriksen, L. C. M. Lebreton, H. S. Carson, M. Thiel, 126 S. Piehl, A. Leibner, M. G. J. Löder, R. Dris, C. Bogner and
C. J. Moore, J. C. Borerro, F. Galgani, P. G. Ryan and C. Laforsch, Sci. Rep., 2018, 8, 1–9.
J. Reisser, PLoS One, 2014, 9, e111913. 127 X. J. Jiang, W. Liu, E. Wang, T. Zhou and P. Xin, Soil Tillage
101 I. A. Kane, M. A. Clare, E. Miramontes, R. Wogelius, Res., 2017, 166, 100–107.
J. J. Rothwell, P. Garreau and F. Pohl, Science, 2020, 368, 128 M. Zhang, B. Dong, Y. Qiao, H. Yang, Y. Wang and M. Liu,
1140–1145. Field Crops Res., 2018, 225, 130–140.
102 C. Jiang, L. Yin, Z. Li, X. Wen, X. Luo, S. Hu, H. Yang, 129 J. Wang, A. Taylor, C. Xu, D. Schlenk and J. Gan, Environ.
Y. Long, B. Deng and L. Huang, Environ. Pollut., 2019, Pollut., 2018, 238, 462–470.
249, 91–98. 130 M. C. Rillig and A. Lehmann, Science, 2020, 368, 1430–1431.
103 G. De Bhowmick, A. K. Sarmah and B. Dubey, Case Stud. 131 P. He, L. Chen, L. Shao, H. Zhang and F. Lü, Water Res.,
Chem. Environ. Eng., 2021, 3, 100076. 2019, 159, 38–45.
104 S. Ziajahromi, P. A. Neale, I. T. Silveira, A. Chua and
F. D. L. Leusch, Chemosphere, 2021, 263, 128294.
132 H. Liu, X. Yang, G. Liu, C. Liang, S. Xue, H. Chen, 158 Y. Su, V. Ashworth, C. Kim, A. S. Adeleye, P. Rolshausen,
C. J. Ritsema and V. Geissen, Chemosphere, 2017, 185, C. Roper, J. White and D. Jassby, Environ. Sci.: Nano,
907–917. 2019, 6, 2311–2331.
133 M. C. Rillig, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2018, 52, 6079–6080. 159 L. Li, J. Yang, Q. Zhou, W. J. G. M. Peijnenburg and Y. Luo,
134 M. Brodhagen, J. R. Goldberger, D. G. Hayes, D. A. Inglis, Uptake of microplastics and their effects on plants, in
T. L. Marsh and C. Miles, Environ. Sci. Policy, 2017, 69, Microplastics in Terrestrial Environments. The Handbook of
81–84. Environmental Chemistry, vol. 95, Springer, Cham, 2020.
135 E. K. Liu, W. Q. He and C. R. Yan, Environ. Res. Lett., 2014, 9, 160 E. C. Ebere, V. A. Wirnkor and V. E. Ngozi, World Sci. News,
91001. 2019, 131, 256–267.
136 M. Karamanlioglu and G. D. Robson, Polym. Degrad. Stab., 161 L. G. A. Barboza, C. Lopes, P. Oliveira, F. Bessa, V. Otero,
2013, 98, 2063–2071. B. Henriques, J. Raimundo, M. Caetano, C. Vale and
137 S. Kubowicz and A. M. Booth, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2017, L. Guilhermino, Sci. Total Environ., 2020, 717, 134625.
51(21), 12058–12060. 162 T. Saeed, N. Al-Jandal, A. Al-Mutairi and H. Taqi, Mar.
138 A. F. Astner, D. G. Hayes, H. O'Neill, B. R. Evans, S. V Pollut. Bull., 2020, 152, 110880.
Pingali, V. S. Urban and T. M. Young, Sci. Total Environ., 163 A. Lusher, P. Hollman and J. Mendoza-Hill, FAO Fish.
2019, 685, 1097–1106. Aquac. Tech. Pap., 2017, 9(9), 1346–1360.
139 M. González-Pleiter, M. Tamayo-Belda, G. Pulido-Reyes, 164 Z. Cheng, J.-R. Chen, C. Zheng, Z.-B. Yang, X.-X. Xu and
G. Amariei, F. Leganés, R. Rosal and F. Fernández-Piñas, M.-H. Wong, Chemosphere, 2021, 276, 130189.
Environ. Sci.: Nano, 2019, 6, 1382–1392. 165 P. Marsden, A. A. Koelmans, J. Bourdon-Lacombe,
140 A. S. Al Hosni, J. K. Pittman and G. D. Robson, Waste T. Gouin, L. D'Anglada, D. Cunliffe, P. Jarvis, J. Fawell
Manage., 2019, 97, 105–114. and J. De France, Microplastics in Drinking Water, World
141 A. Pischedda, M. Tosin and F. Degli-Innocenti, Polym. Health Organization, 2019.
Degrad. Stab., 2019, 170, 109017. 166 D. Schymanski, C. Goldbeck, H.-U. Humpf and P. Fürst,
142 D. Iram, R. Riaz and R. K. Iqbal, Open J. Environ. Biol., 2019, Water Res., 2018, 129, 154–162.
4, 7–15. 167 S. V. Panno, W. R. Kelly, J. Scott, W. Zheng, R. E. McNeish,
143 J. Liao and Q. Chen, J. Hazard. Mater., 2021, 126329. N. Holm, T. J. Hoellein and E. L. Baranski, Groundwater,
144 J. Rüthi, D. Bölsterli, L. Pardi-Comensoli, I. Brunner and 2019, 57, 189–196.
B. Frey, Front. Environ. Sci., 2020, 8, 173. 168 A. A. Koelmans, N. H. M. Nor, E. Hermsen, M. Kooi,
145 S. Pignattelli, A. Broccoli and M. Renzi, Sci. Total Environ., S. M. Mintenig and J. De France, Water Res., 2019, 155,
2020, 727, 138609. 410–422.
146 K. Yokota and M. Mehlrose, Water, 2020, 12, 2650. 169 WHO, Microplastics in Drinking-Water, https://apps.who.int/
147 H. Zang, J. Zhou, M. R. Marshall, D. R. Chadwick, Y. Wen iris/bitstream/handle/10665/326499/9789241516198-
and D. L. Jones, Soil Biol. Biochem., 2020, 148, 107926. eng.pdf?ua¼1, accessed January 19, 2021.
148 F. Wang, X. Zhang, S. Zhang, S. Zhang and Y. Sun, 170 E. H. Lwanga, J. M. Vega, V. K. Quej, J. de los Angeles Chi,
Chemosphere, 2020, 254, 126791. L. S. Del Cid, C. Chi, G. E. Segura, H. Gertsen, T. Salánki
149 Y. Zhou, X. Liu and J. Wang, Sci. Total Environ., 2019, 694, and M. van der Ploeg, Sci. Rep., 2017, 7, 1–7.
133798. 171 Y. Song, C. Cao, R. Qiu, J. Hu, M. Liu, S. Lu, H. Shi,
150 H. Tong, X. Hu, X. Zhong and Q. Jiang, Environ. Toxicol. K. M. Raley-Susman and D. He, Environ. Pollut., 2019,
Chem., 2021, 40, 72–78. 250, 447–455.
151 Y. M. Lozano and M. C. Rillig, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2020, 172 Y. Deng, Y. Zhang, B. Lemos and H. Ren, Sci. Rep., 2017, 7,
54, 6166–6173. 1–10.
152 A. A. de Souza Machado, C. W. Lau, W. Kloas, J. Bergmann, 173 Y. Cho, W. J. Shim, M. Jang, G. M. Han and S. H. Hong,
J. B. Bachelier, E. Faltin, R. Becker, A. S. Görlich and Environ. Pollut., 2019, 245, 1107–1116.
M. C. Rillig, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2019, 53, 6044–6052. 174 B. Liebmann, S. Köppel, P. Königshofer, T. Bucsics,
153 J. Ru, Y. Huo and Y. Yang, Front. Microbiol., 2020, 11, 442. T. Reiberger and P. Schwabl, in Conference on Nano and
154 S. Miri, R. Saini, S. M. Davoodi, R. Pulicharla, S. K. Brar and Microplastics in Technical and Freshwater Systems, 2018.
S. Magdouli, Chemosphere, 2021, 131670. 175 P. Schwabl, S. Köppel, P. Königshofer, T. Bucsics,
155 J. C. Sanchez-Hernandez, Y. Capowiez and K. S. Ro, ACS M. Trauner, T. Reiberger and B. Liebmann, Ann. Intern.
Sustainable Chem. Eng., 2020, 8, 4292–4316. Med., 2019, 171(7), 453–457.
156 M. Llorca, D. Álvarez-Muñoz, M. Ábalos, S. Rodrı́guez- 176 M. E. Iñiguez, J. A. Conesa and A. Fullana, Sci. Rep., 2017, 7,
Mozaz, L. H. Santos, V. M. León, J. A. Campillo, 1–7.
C. Martı́nez-Gómez, E. Abad and M. Farré, Trends Environ. 177 A. Karami, A. Golieskardi, C. K. Choo, V. Larat,
Anal. Chem., 2020, e00090. T. S. Galloway and B. Salamatinia, Sci. Rep., 2017, 7, 46173.
157 L. Li, Q. Zhou, N. Yin, C. Tu and Y. Luo, Chin. Sci. Bull., 178 F. Zhang, Y. B. Man, W. Y. Mo, K. Y. Man and M. H. Wong,
2019, 64, 928–934. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2020, 50, 2109–2143.
179 A. Mathalon and P. Hill, Mar. Pollut. Bull., 2014, 81, 69–79.
180 X. Qu, L. Su, H. Li, M. Liang and H. Shi, Sci. Total Environ., 200 Canada, NAICS 3261 Plastic Products Industry (Total),
2018, 621, 679–686. https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/plastics-plastiques.nsf/eng/
181 S. Karbalaei, P. Hanachi, T. R. Walker and M. Cole, Environ. pl00312.html, accessed February 1, 2021.
Sci. Pollut. Res., 2018, 25, 36046–36063. 201 W.-L. Wang, Q.-Y. Wu, C. Wang, T. He and H.-Y. Hu,
182 G. Liebezeit and E. Liebezeit, Pol. J. Food Nutr. Sci., 2015, 65, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 2015, 22, 3620–3630.
143–147. 202 O. Edjere, A. C. Ibezute and O. E. Oghama, Int. Res. J. Pure
183 A. Khalid, A. Zalouk-Vergnoux, S. Benali, R. Mincheva, Appl. Chem., 2020, 18–28.
J.-M. Raquez, S. Bertrand and L. Poirier, Mar. Pollut. Bull., 203 L. Wei, Z. Li, J. Sun and L. Zhu, Sci. Total Environ., 2020,
2021, 167, 112295. 726, 137978.
184 D. M. Mitrano and W. Wohlleben, Nat. Commun., 2020, 11, 204 B. Zhou, L. Zhao, Y. Sun, X. Li, L. Weng and Y. Li, Sci. Total
1–12. Environ., 2021, 778, 146281.
185 Canada, Microbeads in Toiletries Regulations, http:// 205 Z. Steinmetz, C. Wollmann, M. Schaefer, C. Buchmann,
www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2017/2017-06-14/html/sor- J. David, J. Tröger, K. Muñoz, O. Frör and
dors111-eng.html, accessed February 10, 2021. G. E. Schaumann, Sci. Total Environ., 2016, 550, 690–705.
186 A. F. Herbort, M. T. Sturm and K. Schuhen, Environ. Sci. 206 J. Wang, S. Lv, M. Zhang, G. Chen, T. Zhu, S. Zhang,
Pollut. Res., 2018, 25, 15226–15234. Y. Teng, P. Christie and Y. Luo, Chemosphere, 2016, 151,
187 Blueair, Blueair Air Puriers Remove Microplastics from the 171–177.
Air, https://www.blueair.com/ca/blue-family-page.html?, 207 X. Li, W. Zhang, J. Lv, W. Liu, S. Sun, C. Guo and J. Xu,
accessed January 29, 2021. Environ. Sci. Eur., 2021, 33, 1–14.
188 M. I. Ali, S. Ahmed, G. Robson, I. Javed, N. Ali, N. Atiq and 208 WHO, Concise International Chemical Assessment Document
A. Hameed, J. Basic Microbiol., 2014, 54, 18–27. 52. Geneva, Switz World Heal Organ, 2003, https://
189 J. C. Prata, Environ. Pollut., 2018, 234, 115–126. www.who.int/ipcs/publications/cicad/en/cicad52.pdf,
190 L. Wuennenberg and C. M. Tan, Plastic Waste in Canada: A accessed on March 1, 2021.
daunting economic and environmental threat or an 209 R. Kavlock, K. Boekelheide, R. Chapin, M. Cunningham,
opportunity for sustainable public procurement?, 2019, E. Faustman and P. Foster, Reprod. Toxicol., 2002, 16,
https://www.iisd.org/articles/plastic-waste-canada, 529–653.
accessed on January 23, 2021. 210 K. V. S. Rajmohan, C. Ramya, M. R. Viswanathan and
191 CleanFARMS, Ontario Agricultural Waste Study: S. Varjani, Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health, 2019, 12, 72–84.
Environmental Impacts of Open-Burning Agricultural 211 A. L. Lusher, N. A. Welden, P. Sobral and M. Cole, Anal.
Plastics, 2011. Methods, 2017, 9, 1346–1360.
192 H. Jeswani, C. Krüger, M. Russ, M. Horlacher, F. Antony, 212 N. K. Y. Susanti, A. Mardiastuti and Y. Wardiatno, in IOP
S. Hann and A. Azapagic, Sci. Total Environ., 2021, 769, Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, IOP
144483. Publishing, 2020, vol. 528, p. 12013.
193 H. H. Khoo, Resour., Conserv. Recycl., 2019, 145, 67–77. 213 E. Besseling, A. Wegner, E. M. Foekema, M. J. Van Den
194 UK-Government, LCA of Management Options for Mixed Heuvel-Greve and A. A. Koelmans, Environ. Sci. Technol.,
Waste Plastics, https://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/les/wrap/ 2013, 47, 593–600.
LCA of Management Options for Mixed Waste 214 L. Lei, S. Wu, S. Lu, M. Liu, Y. Song, Z. Fu, H. Shi,
Plastics.pdfs#0, accessed December 25, 2020. K. M. Raley-Susman and D. He, Sci. Total Environ., 2018,
195 Y. Aryan, P. Yadav and S. R. Samadder, J. Cleaner Prod., 619, 1–8.
2019, 211, 1268–1283. 215 Y. Ma, A. Huang, S. Cao, F. Sun, L. Wang, H. Guo and R. Ji,
196 L. Wood, Global Plastic Recycling Market Report 2021: Market Environ. Pollut., 2016, 219, 166–173.
to Reach $47.3 Billion by 2026 from $33 Billion in 2020 – 216 W. Wang, J. Ge, X. Yu and H. Li, Sci. Total Environ., 2020,
ResearchAndMarkets.com, https://www.businesswire.com/ 708, 134841.
news/home/20211130005878/en/Global-Plastic-Recycling- 217 J. Kang, L. Zhou, X. Duan, H. Sun, Z. Ao and S. Wang,
Market-Report-2021-Market-to-Reach-47.3-Billion-by-2026- Matter, 2019, 1, 745–758.
from-33-Billion-in-2020—ResearchAndMarkets.com, 218 H. Ye, Y. Wang, X. Liu, D. Xu, H. Yuan, H. Sun, S. Wang and
accessed December 3, 2021. X. Ma, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 2021, 588, 510–521.
197 OMAFRA, Recycling Farm Plastic Films, http:// 219 I. A. Ricardo, E. A. Alberto, A. H. S. Júnior, D. L. P. Macuvele,
www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/95- N. Padoin, C. Soares, H. G. Riella, M. C. V. M. Starling and
019.htm#11, accessed October 14, 2020. A. G. Trovó, Chem. Eng. J., 2021, 130282.
198 StatisticsCanada, Canada at a Glance, Environment Edition, 220 X. Jiao, K. Zheng, Q. Chen, X. Li, Y. Li, W. Shao, J. Xu, J. Zhu,
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/12-581-x/2017001/ Y. Pan and Y. Sun, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 2020, 59, 15497–
sec-5-eng.htm, accessed October 14, 2020. 15501.
199 IBISWorld, Waste Collection Services in Canada – Market 221 X. Jie, W. Li, D. Slocombe, Y. Gao, I. Banerjee, S. Gonzalez-
Research Report, https://www.ibisworld.com/canada/ Cortes, B. Yao, H. AlMegren, S. Alshihri and J. Dilworth,
market-research-reports/waste-collection-services-industry/ Nat. Catal., 2020, 3, 902–912.
, accessed October 14, 2020.
222 J. Nikiema, J. Mateo-Sagasta, Z. Asiedu, D. Saad and 228 Y. Hu, M. Gong, J. Wang and A. Bassi, Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/
B. Lamizana, Water pollution by plastics and microplastics: Technol., 2019, 18, 207–230.
a review of technical solutions from source to sea, 2020, 229 B. Ma, W. Xue, Y. Ding, C. Hu, H. Liu and J. Qu, J. Environ.
https://www.unep.org/resources/report/water-pollution- Sci., 2019, 78, 267–275.
plastics-and-microplastics-review-technical-solutions- 230 J. W. Park, S. J. Lee, D. Y. Hwang and S. Seo, RSC Adv., 2021,
source-sea, accessed on January 15, 2021. 11, 3556–3566.
223 C. Dussud and J.-F. Ghiglione, CIESM Workshop Monogr., 231 M. Sarcletti, H. Park, J. Wirth, S. Englisch, A. Eigen,
2014, 46, 49–54. D. Drobek, D. Vivod, B. Friedrich, R. Tietze and
224 E. H. Lwanga, B. Thapa, X. Yang, H. Gertsen, T. Salánki, C. Alexiou, Mater. Today., 2021, 48, 38–46.
V. Geissen and P. Garbeva, Sci. Total Environ., 2018, 624, 232 N. Mohanan, Z. Montazer, P. K. Sharma and D. B. Levin,
753–757. Front. Microbiol., 2020, 11, 2837.
225 P. Bhatt, V. M. Pathak, A. R. Bagheri and M. Bilal, Environ. 233 W. Y. Chia, D. Y. Y. Tang, K. S. Khoo, A. N. K. Lup and
Res., 2021, 111762. K. W. Chew, Environ. Sci. Ecotechnol., 2020, 100065.
226 J. Fojt, J. David, R. Přikryl, V. Řezáčová and J. Kučerı́k, Sci. 234 A. Nakanishi, K. Iritani and Y. Sakihama, J. Nanotechnol.
Total Environ., 2020, 745, 140975. Nanomater., 2020, 1(2), 72–85.
227 X. u Zhao, Z. Li, Y. Chen, L. Shi and Y. Zhu, J. Mol. Catal. A: 235 S. Ju, G. Shin, M. Lee, J. M. Koo, H. Jeon, Y. S. Ok,
Chem., 2007, 268, 101–106. D. S. Hwang, S. Y. Hwang, D. X. Oh and J. Park, Green
Chem., 2021, 23(8), 6953–6965.

Microplastics_in_the_ecosystems_Their_implications

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Microplastics_in_the_ecosystems_Their_implications

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Microplastics_in_the_ecosystems_Their_implications

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Science

Microplastics in ecosystems: their implications and

Dr Poritosh Roy is an Agricul- Prof. Amar Mohanty is a Distin-

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) 43 336 2468 33 12 3 735

environmentally benecial because the climate change impact Economic impacts

Fig. 6 An overview of microplastic remediation technologies.

Fig. 7 A potential route of microplastic remediation from ecosystems.

9 ECCC, Economic Study of the Canadian Plastic Industry,

You might also like