ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
My Activity
CONTENT TYPES

Figure 1Loading Img
RETURN TO ISSUEPREVCritical ReviewNEXT

Quality Criteria for the Analysis of Microplastic in Biota Samples: A Critical Review

  • Enya Hermsen
    Enya Hermsen
    Aquatic Ecology and Water Quality Management Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands
    More by Enya Hermsen
  • Svenja M. Mintenig
    Svenja M. Mintenig
    Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
    KWR Watercycle Research Institute, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
  • Ellen Besseling
    Ellen Besseling
    Aquatic Ecology and Water Quality Management Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands
    Wageningen Marine Research, IJmuiden, The Netherlands
    More by Ellen Besseling
  • , and 
  • Albert A. Koelmans*
    Albert A. Koelmans
    Aquatic Ecology and Water Quality Management Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands
    Wageningen Marine Research, IJmuiden, The Netherlands
    *E-mail: [email protected]
Cite this: Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 18, 10230–10240
Publication Date (Web):August 23, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b01611

Copyright © 2018 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND.

  • Open Access

Article Views

18716

Altmetric

-

Citations

363
LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICS
PDF (904 KB)
Supporting Info (1)»

Abstract

Data on ingestion of microplastics by marine biota are quintessential for monitoring and risk assessment of microplastics in the environment. Current studies, however, portray a wide spread in results on the occurrence of microplastic ingestion, highlighting a lack of comparability of results, which might be attributed to a lack of standardization of methods. We critically review and evaluate recent microplastic ingestion studies in aquatic biota, propose a quality assessment method for such studies, and apply the assessment method to the reviewed studies. The quality assessment method uses ten criteria: sampling method and strategy, sample size, sample processing and storage, laboratory preparation, clean air conditions, negative controls, positive controls, target component, sample (pre)treatment, and polymer identification. The results of this quality assessment show a dire need for stricter quality assurance in microplastic ingestion studies. On average, studies score 8.0 out of 20 points for “completeness of information” and 0 for “reliability”. Alongside the assessment method, a standardized protocol for detecting microplastic in biota samples incorporating these criteria is provided.

Introduction

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

The ubiquity of microplastic (plastic particles < 5 mm (1)), combined with associated effects, has raised concerns regarding marine species, ecosystems, and the impact it may have on human health. Microplastics have been detected in a wide variety of habitats in the ocean from shallow coasts to the deep sea. (2−4) Increasing numbers of studies report the ingestion of microplastic by marine biota across multiple trophic levels, including animals often targeted by fisheries (Table 1). (5−9) The ingestion of microplastics seemingly concerns a wider range of species than the ingestion of meso- and macroplastics; indeed, it is considered the most frequent interaction between plastic debris and marine organisms. (10)
Table 1. Scoring of the Reviewed Articles in the Current Quality Assessmenta
    criterion
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  
study year sampling methods sample size sample processing and storage laboratory preparation clean air conditions negative control positive control target component sample treatment polymer identification accumulated score
Lusher et al. (48) 2016 2 2 2 2 1 2 0 2 2 0 15
Tanaka and Takada (78) 2016 2 2 2 0 0 1 0 2 2 2 13
Davidson and Dudas (59) 2016 1 1 2 2 0 2 2 2 0 0 12
Rummel et al. (58) 2016 2 2 0 2 1 2 0 0 1 2 12
Courtene-Jones et al. (49) 2017 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 2 2 2 11
Devriese et al. (56) 2015 2 1 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 11
Mathalon and Hill (8) 2014 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 0 0 11
Wesch et al. (79) 2016 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 2 2 1 11
Cannon et al. (43) 2016 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 10
Desforges and Galbraith (50) 2015 2 2 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 10
Li et al. (80) 2016 2 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 2 10
Murphy et al. (81) 2017 2 1 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 2 10
Vandermeersch et al. (27) 2015 1 1 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 10
Davison and Asch (41) 2011 2 2 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 9
Foekema et al. (6),b 2013 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 9
Karlsson et al. (53) 2017 1 1 2 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 9
Nadal et al. (82) 2016 2 2 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 9
Torre et al. (54) 2016 0 2 2 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 9
Bellas et al. (47) 2016 2 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 8
Jabeen et al. (44) 2016 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 8
Lusher et al. (5) 2013 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8
Van Cauwenberghe et al. (60) 2014 1 0 1 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 8
Brate et al. (83) 2016 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 7
Anastasopoulou et al. (84) 2013 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6
Besseling et al. (16),b 2015 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 6
Jantz et al. (85) 2013 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6
Murray and Cowie (51) 2011 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
Peters et al. (70) 2017 1 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6
Vendel et al. (86) 2017 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
Boerger et al. (52) 2010 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Liboiron et al. (55) 2016 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4
Neves et al. (7) 2015 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3
Wojcik-Fudalewska et al. (87) 2016 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Romeo et al. (9) 2015 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Miranda and de Carvalho-Souza (88) 2016 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Av all-study score (n = 35)   1.14 1.46 1.31 0.57 0.40 0.86 0.17 1.03 0.43 0.66 8.0
a

Scores of 0–2 were assigned to each publication in each of the 10 categories. The publications are sorted from high to low based on the “accumulated score”. The overall reliability score was 0 for all studies and is not indicated.

b

Studies with involvement of 1 or more of the authors of the present paper.

Ingested microplastic particles are thought able to evoke a biological response through both physical and chemical mechanisms, although many of these effects have yet to be studied. Ingestion of microplastics is thought to cause physical damage in small organisms (2) and has been speculated to provide a pathway for some associated chemicals to enter and spread in the food web all the way up to humans with microplastic particles as vectors. (11−13) Additionally, ingestion by biota is considered a possible sink for microplastics. (14) Therefore, measuring quantities of ingested plastic is of high priority to properly assess the risk of such hazards.
Physical impacts for small organisms like internal abrasions and blockages have been reported. (2) Moreover, microplastic particles were shown to cause damage leading to cellular necrosis, inflammation, and lacerations of tissues in gastrointestinal tracts according to a review of plastic impact on biota. (15) In bigger organisms, ingestion of larger objects (i.e., macroplastics) has been demonstrated too. (16,17)
In addition to the impact of ingested microplastics proper, persistent organic pollutants (POPs) may concentrate on the particles. It is suggested this could pose a possible new route for POPs to enter the food chain; (11,12) however, it has not been irrefutably shown that this actually happens. (18−20) Contrarily, evidence in Northern Fulmars (Fulmarus glacialis) suggests a transfer of POPs from the lipids in the animal to the plastic rather than the other way around. (18)
The concerns for the impacts of microplastic are reinforced by the hypothesis that microplastics may be able to spread through the food web by means of trophic transfer, a phenomenon that has been observed in a few instances. (21,22) This is cause for concern especially in commercially valuable species as it possibly poses a threat to human food safety. (23) To what extent this transfer occurs in the food web remains to be studied further.
Despite these worries concerning microplastic ingestion, the effects in the natural environment and implications for the food web remain poorly understood. Because of the absence of suitable standardized methods, data are too often incomparable, are not representative, and lack quality assurance. (24−28) Hence, our knowledge on the fate and impacts of microplastics remains incomplete. The microplastic research field is young, and as research performed now lays down the foundations for later studies, there is a dire need for a standardized protocol for carrying out studies on the ingestion of microplastics by marine biota to mitigate this issue. (27) Although first steps toward standardization of methodologies in environmental samples are being made, (27,28) the comparability of current data is being impeded by the wide variety of methodologies, which has led to data of different quality. (24,29) For dealing with the wide spread in quality of the data produced by studies, an example can be taken from the field of toxicology. In toxicology, it is common practice to assess the reliability of studies with consensus criteria, like the so-called Klimisch score, (30) or the recently proposed Criteria for Reporting and Evaluating Ecotoxicity Data (CRED). (31) These methods both offer scoring systems with different reliability categories, generating standardized documentation of validity evaluation. They were developed to guide risk assessors in performing unbiased, transparent, and detailed evaluations while guiding researchers in performing and reporting studies in a manner deemed appropriate. (31) We argue that research and risk assessment with respect to the impacts of plastic debris are in urgent need for the development and use of such criteria. (32)
The aim of the present study is to critically review the literature on ingestion of microplastic by marine biota. On the basis of this review, we develop a scoring method for ecological studies and the analytical methodologies employed to detect plastic debris in aquatic biota samples. The scoring method is subsequently applied retrospectively to the reviewed studies. This assessment does not result in an absolute judgment but is an indicator of the usefulness of these studies for risk assessment and monitoring purposes of microplastic ingestion in natural populations. We also provide average scores per evaluation criterion, illustrating which methodological aspects need improvements most. Finally, our synthesis provides the basis for a quality assurance protocol for the analysis of microplastic debris in biota samples.

Materials and Methods

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

An extensive literature review was undertaken by accessing the Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Scopus databases for studies of microplastic ingestion in marine biota in natural populations, including studies from all years up until those published in June 2017. Queries included the following search terms: “microplastic AND ingestion AND marine”, “microplastic AND uptake AND marine”, “microplastic AND marine biota”, and “microplastic AND biota AND monitor*”. Reference lists of the found articles, reviews, and “reversed searches” were consulted as well, resulting in a representative collection of 35 currently available studies. Laboratory exposure experiments were excluded from the collection. Furthermore, studies were only included if they provided data on the ingestion of microplastic. For these studies, the ingestion incidence was calculated as the fraction of sampled individuals containing microplastic. The 95% confidence intervals for these binominal proportions were assessed using the Wilson method. (33) Subsequently, studies were scored according to method quality criteria discussed in the next section. All studies were assessed by two separate authors independently, after which differences in scoring were discussed and tuned until the assessment was done consistently across all studies. For maximizing transparency and traceability, the scoring explanations, scoring criteria, and scorings for all papers are provided as Supporting Information (Tables S1–S3, respectively). The eventual assessments do not express the value of studies. In hindsight, they only reflect the compliance of studies to reliability criteria as perceived by the authors of the present paper. Although we maximized our effort to be complete and thorough in this process, misinterpretations or misjudgements cannot be completely excluded.
The scoring method presented here was designed to assess current studies on reliability of their data on microplastic ingestion in marine field biota and is based on several aspects that define a reproducible and controlled study. The method evaluates the inherent adequacy of the employed methods for monitoring and risk assessment purposes relating to a standardized methodology and the description of the procedure and results. By scoring high in all categories, a study can be defined as “reliable”, providing reproducibility, clarity, and plausibility of its findings.

Quality Assessment System

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

Previous scoring systems that have been proposed for assessing the reliability of ecotoxicology studies are the Klimisch (30) and the more recent CRED scoring systems. (31) The Klimisch criteria have received critiques for being unspecific and for lacking essential criteria and guidance, leaving too much room for interpretation. (31) The CRED evaluation method gives extensive guidance on how to use the set criteria and gives recommendations for reporting. (31) Following the example set by the CRED method, the present evaluation method for microplastic ingestion studies provides several criteria that must be assessed, including guidance on how to assess each criterion. The quality assessment method is made up of ten criteria: (1) sampling method and strategy, (2) sample size, (3) sample processing and storage, (4) laboratory preparation, (5) clean air conditions, (6) negative controls, (7) positive controls, (8) target component, (9) sample (pre)treatment, and (10) polymer identification (Table 1). For each criterion, a score of 0, 1, or 2 can be assigned to the publication under review. Scores signify the following: 2 = reliable without restrictions, 1 = somewhat reliable but with restrictions, 0 = not reliable. If information is lacking on certain aspects in the publication, this is considered unreliable, leading to a lower score. After each criterion is scored, an overall reliability score is calculated by taking the product of all criteria scores, resulting in a maximum attainable overall theoretical reliability score of 1024 points, indicating a high reliability of a publication. This contrasts with both the CRED and Klimisch method: these methods assign a category of reliability to each criterion but do not quantify it with a score. (30,31) In the evaluation method presented here, the quantification through scoring is deemed important because each criterion is considered crucial and equally important to the reliability of the results of a study. This means when a study scores 0 points on a criterion, too much uncertainty still surrounds the results of the study, marking the results unreliable. This also means that when only one criterion is evaluated as “not reliable” (0 points) the overall reliability score of the study will be 0. Besides this overall reliability score, we provide an accumulated score calculated as the sum of the individual scores. This score has a maximum of 20 points and can be seen as a combination of the reliability and the completeness of information in a publication.
In the following ten paragraphs, argumentation is provided on each of the ten scoring categories, including explanation based on the currently reviewed studies and specification of scoring criteria. A supporting, more detailed overview of the scoring criteria is provided as Supporting Information (Tables S1 and S2).

Sampling Methods and Strategy

Several factors related to sampling method and strategy affect the results of microplastic detection in biota samples. For instance, because of differences in density and sinking as a result of biofouling, plastic is found at different depths of the water column. (10,34) Microplastics are also known to accumulate in the sediment (28,35,36) with deep sea bottoms likely to make up a sink for the particles. (34,37,38) It is plausible that feeding strategy has an influence on the type and amount of microplastic ingested (39,40) with planktivorous and filter feeders expected to be more susceptible to ingestion of low density particles floating in the top layers of the water column and demersal and bottom dwelling species more likely to encounter high density microplastics. Additionally, some species are known for diurnal vertical migration and are subjected to a wide variety of microplastic encountered, possibly affecting their ingestion rates. Nonecological factors such as mesh size will influence life stage of the caught individuals in the sample, whereas a small mesh size could lead to cod-end feeding. (41) Sampling methods can greatly influence the outcome of a study; therefore, it is important that such characteristics of the sampling are recorded to create a reproducible study. (28,42) Furthermore, by reporting such details, it could be easier to interpret the outcome and account for possible contamination in the results.
In this section, studies are scored on reportage, and therefore reproducibility, of the sampling, but also on choice of sampling method itself. Studies scoring high in this section reported extensively on their methods (e.g., type of gear, sampling location and depth) and controlled their own sampling or were fully aware of what had happened to the specimens during sampling. Articles with low scores either failed to report on (parts of) their sampling (Table 2), or used, for instance, store-bought individuals when making inferences on natural populations. (43,44) The use of store- or market-bought individuals is not inherently wrong as long as the interest of the study lies on contamination of sea food and not on natural populations. Scores of 1 indicate that, for part of the sample, sampling was not performed correctly, whereas for another part of the sample it was: the aim of the study should be correctly matched to the sampling method. For example, Vandermeersch et al. (2015) (27) partially used store-bought individuals while using self-sampled ones for a different part of the study. The microplastic uptake in mussels from different estuaries was compared with the uptake by commercial mussels. The commercial mussels were bought in stores, leading to uncertainty about the treatment of these mussels prior to the analysis: microplastic found in these mussels could have originated from contamination during handling in the production chain rather than from microplastic ingestion by the mussels themselves. Would the aim of this study have been to check microplastic content in store-bought individuals (i.e., checking on general contamination, not ingestion), this would not have been an issue. This study scored 1 in this section because part of the study can be considered reliable with sampling method correctly matched to the aim of the specific part of the study.
Table 2. Standardized Protocol for the Detection of Ingested Microplastic in (Marine) Biota
1. Sampling methods Sampling characteristics that should be recorded:
- Gear
- Mesh size and mesh size at cod-end (if applicable)
- Material
- Location
- Depth
- Date and time of day
- Presence of plastic materials
2. Sample size A suitable sample size of 50 individuals per research unit (species, food web, ecoregion, feeding type, etc.) is required. (42,45)
The confidence interval of the ingestion incidences should be reported (Figure 1).
3. Sample processing and storage Between the moment of capture and the examination in the lab the biota samples should be stored on ice or frozen at −20 °C. Smaller organisms can also be preserved in a glass container with ethanol or formaldehyde. Any sample handling, such as dissections, should be left for the lab.
4. Laboratory preparation All materials, equipment, and laboratory surfaces need to be thoroughly washed and rinsed; afterward, all materials should be kept under clean air conditions. Used solutions and filters should be checked before use; the same applies for the outside of the sample specimens. (6)
5. Clean air conditions The handling of samples should be performed in clean air facilities. (28) Samples should not be taken out of the clean air facilities without being sealed off. If sampling processing and analysis cannot fully be conducted under clean air conditions, the implementation of negative controls (see criterion 6) will get even more important.
6. Negative control A replicate of 3 negative controls is advised that are included for each batch of samples and treated in parallel to the sample treatment. (42)
Additionally, if the samples have to be analyzed outside of the clean air facilities, clean Petri dishes should be placed next to the sample, and checked for any occurred air- borne contamination.
7. Positive controls A replicate of 3 is advised in which microplastics of known polymer identity and of targeted sizes are added to “clean” samples, which are then treated and analyzed the same way as the actual samples. The particle recoveries are calculated by tallying the numbers of retrieved particles to the amounts added.
8. Target component To ensure monitoring all ingested microplastic, the full gastrointestinal tract (esophagus to vent) of fish and the entire body of smaller species, e.g. bivalves, should be examined.
9. Sample treatment A digestion step must be included to dissolve organic matter in the sample when aiming in the detection of small microplastics (<300 μm). The digestion method described by Foekema et al. (2013) (6) using a 10% KOH solution and enzymatic digestion methods (yet only for small organisms) are most suitable. (49,61,65) In any case, heating or drying of the samples at high temperatures should be avoided.
10. Polymer identification Until now, most common methods in the field of microplastic research are FTIR or Raman spectroscopy, pyrolysis or TGA- GC-MS. The polymer identification is required for all, or at least a subsample of particles: When numbers of pre- sorted particles are <100, all particles should be analyzed. For particle numbers >100, >50% should be identified with a minimum of 100 particles. Particle counts with confidence intervals, detection limits for the count and for minimum particle size, polymer types and percentages (of different polymer types, of synthetic vs natural material), and particle sizes should be reported.

Sample Size

Both the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea ICES (2015) (42) and the European Strategy Framework Directive’s Technical Subgroup on Marine Litter (MSFD-TSGML) (2013) (45) recommend a sample size of at least 50 individuals. This sample size of 50 is arbitrarily chosen, since, due to the wide variety in microplastic ingestion reported by different studies, no clear indication of the true ingestion incidence of microplastic by biota can be estimated. When more clarity can be given in the future, this recommended sample size should be adjusted accordingly. If ingestion incidence appears to be low, higher sample sizes will be needed to give reliable results; if populations show high incidence of microplastic ingestion, lower sample sizes will suffice.
The scoring in this category is fairly straightforward using the recommended 50 individuals as a threshold until it is possible to perform a reliable power analysis to calculate a more appropriate sample size for ingestion studies. Too low a sample size may provide interesting data, but no conclusions should be drawn as the statistical power of such a study would be simply too low to infer any trends. A larger sample size is always advisible because it will lead to more reliable results, i.e., narrower confidence intervals (Figure 1). Studies with a sample size over 50 specimens taken from a food web or ecoregion scored 2. A score of 0 was ascribed to studies using less than 50 specimens. Studies with >50 specimens in total and >25 specimens per research unit (e.g., a species, food web, or ecoregion) received a score of 1. For now, we also applied these criteria to a study that reported the presence of microplastic in a single-stranded whale, (16) leading to a very wide confidence interval (Figure 1). However, for whales or for rare and protected species, the n = 50 criterion is difficult or even unethical to achieve in a sampling effort meant to assess trends in microplastic ingestion. For such big or protected organisms, retrospective data obtained from stranded animals and from bycatch through different reports need to be combined to reach a sample size with sufficient rigor. (17) This would require harmonization of protocols to increase comparability of studies, guidance for which is beyond scope of the current review.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Ingestion incidence and 95% confidence intervals recalculated from data provided in microplastic ingestion studies. Data are combined to obtain a “whole ocean” biota ingestion incidence value (○).

We further advise provision of the confidence interval in the reported count (e.g., refs (5and46)); however, this was not yet included as criterion in the current scoring. On the basis of the total number of animals and the number of animals that ingested microplastics, we calculated the confidence intervals and provide an overview in Figure 1.

Sample Processing and Storage

After sampling, samples need to be stored until examination in the laboratory. Samples are often frozen, (5,9,47,48) or whole specimens of smaller species are preserved in fixatives such as formalin, ethanol, or formaldehyde. (49−53) ICES (2015) (42) recommends storing biota samples on board using aluminum foil for freezing at −20 °C or preservation in ethanol in glass containers. In the present study, it was not considered necessary to wrap each individual in aluminum foil as long as specimens were quickly frozen after capture at −20 °C and stored in a closed container. If this is combined with a pre-examination rinse of the specimens (see “laboratory preparation”), it should suffice in mediating contamination of the exterior of the specimen. Under no circumstance should the specimen be opened on board. This is considered as a high and difficult to assess risk for contamination due to unregulated conditions on board. We further recommend avoiding the dissection of individuals outside clean air conditions at all times (see “clean air conditions”).
High scores were assigned to studies freezing their samples shortly after capture at −20 °C or storing them on ice, leaving any further handling until the laboratory. Alternative methods storing the samples in closed off containers with a fixative were also given the highest scores in case potential effects of these chemicals on different plastics were studied before application. Recently, the resistance of microplastics to formaldehyde/ethanol has been confirmed. (49) Studies scoring low in this section performed dissections, or otherwise opened the specimens, on board. Middle scores again indicate some aspects of the study do not comply but still partially meet the standards (e.g., different processing for different subsamples).

Laboratory Preparation

Contamination is a prevalent issue in microplastic research, creating uncertainty around the results of many studies. (27,28,54) This risk and uncertainty have been dealt with in different ways. Different forms of prevention have been applied with varying degrees of success. Foekema et al. (2013) (6) decided to exclude small fibers from analyses after finding a sharply decreased abundance when working under clean air conditions. ICES (2015) (42) proposed in their preliminary protocol to exclude all fibers smaller than 5 mm in length from results. Although this may provide a way to reduce the issue of contamination in results, it is less than ideal; by excluding all small fibers from results, truly ingested fibers will be excluded from the results too. This could lead to an underestimation of ingestion rates and a potential knowledge gap in the ingestion of microplastic. Therefore, proper prevention is needed. In the laboratory, contaminations with synthetic polymers should be avoided as they may influence ingestion results. (6,27) Equipment, tools, and work surfaces should be free of particles to avoid easy contamination. To this end, all materials used should be washed and rinsed thoroughly with high quality water (e.g., Milli-Q water) before use and preferably kept in a clean air cabinet.
Factors such as clothing should be considered. Often, contamination arises in the form of microfibers. (27,28) Additional contamination originating from researchers’ clothing can easily be avoided by solely wearing 100% natural fiber clothing, such as cotton. Only wearing a 100% cotton lab coat may not suffice; if one was to wear a polyester shirt underneath, it would not be unimaginable that some fibers could end up in the samples. For the current scoring in this study, if all other precautions were met, a 100% cotton lab coat was considered sufficient.
In some studies, precautions were made by wiping surfaces and tools using alcohol. (55) This method is probably not thorough enough to deal with contamination; merely wiping surfaces, be it with alcohol or water, could still leave particles. They could be missed, detach from the wipe during wiping, or the wipe itself could even prove to be a source of contamination (i.e., the material or dust already collected on the wipe before use). Rigorously washing and rinsing of the equipment are considered to be the only proper option here.
Additional to the preparation of surfaces and tools, the sample specimens themselves require some preparation. The exterior of the animal should be rinsed (6,46) and checked for contamination. In the case of small specimens such as zooplankton, this is not an easy feat. In a study performed by Desforges et al. (2015), (50) this issue was overcome by individually checking each specimen under a microscope and picking off any external contamination with a pair of tweezers.
In summary, a score of 2 was assigned when nonsynthetic clothing and a lab coat were used and equipment and organism exterior were rinsed. A score of 1 was assigned for solely wiping laboratory surfaces and equipment or not wearing a lab coat as long as negative control samples were run in parallel and examined for contamination. A score of 0 was assigned when no precautions were met.

Clean Air Conditions

Problems with airborne contamination are unavoidable unless work is performed under clean air conditions. (6,27,28) To this end, sample handling should be done in a laminar flow cabinet (42,46,56) or in a “clean room”, which is designed to minimize airborne contamination during sample handling and analysis. (28,57) The use of such facilities is a necessity in microplastic research; any handling of samples outside clean air conditions creates a high risk of airborne contamination. (57)
Other studies placed their samples in a fume hood to minimize the risk of contamination. (56) However, because a fume hood draws air from the room into the hood (contrarily to a positive pressure laminar flow cabinet, which blows filtered air through the cabinet into the room), the risk of airborne contamination remains. (57)
A few studies were seen that mitigated contamination by closing off samples as much as possible and handling them as fast as possible. (44,53) These methods are not foolproof and should not be relied upon without further indication on results of negative samples treated in parallel to actual samples.
The proper use of clean air conditions was given a score of 2. A score of 0 was assigned to studies taking no regard for airborne contamination. Studies mitigating contamination by carefully keeping samples in a closed off situation as much possible scored 1 in this category, provided that negative controls were run in parallel and examined for contamination.

Negative Controls

Although increasing in recent studies, the use of controls in microplastic research is not standard practice. During sample handling, the chances of contamination by microplastic particles and fibers are high; thus, the use of controls, treated and analyzed in parallel to actual samples, is crucial.
For a study to score 2, proper blanks should be included for each batch of samples with at least three replicate blanks per batch. These controls should be performed without tissue, or with tissue that was confirmed to be devoid of microplastic, in parallel with samples containing the target component. (42,58) By doing so, the controls are given the same full treatment as the studied specimens. Controls should be run regularly and with special attention to moments of high risk of contamination, such as moving specimens in and out of the laminar flow cabinet. (29) Furthermore, the visual examination of samples forms a moment of high risk, which is why additionally placed and examined Petri dishes next to the sample might be advisible. (46)
Scores of 1 indicate a blank analysis of some form, nevertheless deemed insufficient here. This includes, for instance, solely open Petri dishes or soaked paper that were placed next to the work surface and checked for contamination (46,48) or the filtration of air. These do not account for contamination derived from used chemicals or equipment. Studies scored 0 when no form of negative control was included in the study.

Positive Controls

It is generally difficult to assess whether all microplastics present in a sample are effectively recovered from that sample. Small particles in particular may be overlooked or missed, and losses may occur during all steps of sample preparation, processing, and analysis. Therefore, it is considered crucial to include controls (triplicate) with added microplastic particles that are treated in parallel to the samples to determine the recovery rate (score of 2 points). Ideally, positive controls should also be included for the smallest targeted size class, and the limit in the detected size should be reported. We are aware of only three studies that included reliable positive controls. (41,46,59) Davison and Asch, for instance, (41) blindly added random numbers of spherical beads from two size classes into fish stomach contents, so that the researcher would not know this number, and were able to trace back all added particles to achieve 100% recovery. A score of 1 was assigned to studies with some form of a positive control (e.g., testing only a part of the protocol), and a score of 0 was assigned when no positive controls were included.

Target Component

Among the reviewed studies, different target components were described that are mainly (parts of) the digestive tracts for larger biota, like fish, (5,6,9,46,52) or whole specimens for smaller species, like bivalves (27,50,60) Choosing a suitable target component is an important part of the study setup. For accurate estimation of microplastic ingestion, it is important to examine the entire gastrointestinal tract (GIT) (esophagus to vent). By only examining the stomach, particles in the gut would be missed, leading to an underestimation of ingestion rate. When small animals such as bivalves and zooplankton are being studied, the entire specimen should be used.
Studies examining full specimens or entire GITs received the highest score. Examination of parts of the GIT were scored lowest. In case a study examined a part of the GIT for a subsample yet full GITs for the rest of the sample, it was scored 1.

Sample (Pre)treatment

For extracting and characterizing microplastics in biological samples, a digestion step is a crucial component, namely, dissolving organic matter without degrading plastic polymers. Detection of microplastic in a biological sample without getting rid of the organic matter makes for an unreliable method; the chance of missing particles is high, especially small particles that are not visually detectable. (27) Therefore, it is advised to make use of a digestion pretreatment. (42,61)
Dehaut et al. (2016) (62) performed a study testing six existing methods (including enzymatic, alkaline, and acidic digestion), comparing their effects on 15 different plastic polymers as well as their efficiency in biological samples. Their tests showed that, out of the six protocols, an adapted protocol of Foekema et al. (2013) (6) was most successful. The original protocol involves the samples being left for digestion in 10% KOH solution and kept at room temperature for 3 weeks. The adapted protocol used 10% KOH solution with 24 h of incubation at 60 °C. (62) This adaptation was made to shorten the incubation time. The heating of samples during digestion pretreatments to speed up the process is fairly common, and especially with acidic digestion methods, this is often part of the protocol. However, this practice may be ill advised because the heating of the samples could cause some microplastic particles to deform or clump together. (63) Therefore, it is advised to apply the original protocol of Foekema et al. (2013). (6) The adequacy of the 10% KOH protocol has recently been confirmed by Kühn et al. (2017) (64) and Munno et al. (2018). (63) However, for smaller organisms, like the soft tissue of mussels or plankton species, enzymatic methods have also been shown to provide high digestion rates with no damage to microplastic. (65,66)
On the basis of these findings, studies using a 10% KOH solution-based digestion, or an enzymatic digestion, received the highest score of 2. Studies not incorporating a digestion step received no points. Studies using other digestion methods were scored 1. A score of 1 was also assigned to studies that did not need a digestion step because the size of particles was large enough, which can be achieved by sieving the samples over 300 μm. This mesh size allows adequate particle sorting as is done frequently for, e.g., water samples. (67−69)

Polymer Identification

Accurate identification of polymer types in environmental samples can be laborious. Hence, two aspects are relevant when assessing the polymer identities of a microplastic sample: (1) the quality of the method used for the identification (efficiency, sensitivity, accuracy, reproducibility) and (2) the quality of the selection of the subsample (representativeness).

Polymer Identity

Visual inspection (i.e., characterizing microplastic by eye under a dissection or stereomicroscope) was found to be a frequently used identification method. (8,9,47,50,56,58,70) However, visual examination cannot be used to identify the (polymer) identity of a particle. Without formal evidence of polymer identity, a particle cannot be reported as being a microplastic particle. The quality of visual examination is influenced by the observer, properties of the plastic, targeted microplastic size, magnification of the microscope, and sample type. (28) In a case study on microplastics in North Sea sediments, the usage of focal plane array (FPA) micro-Fourier transform infrared (micro-FTIR) spectroscopy revealed that only 1.4% of the particles visually sorted as microplastic were actually synthetic polymers. (29) Fibers with a size over 500 μm were found to be of natural origin after an initial selection as microplastic. (28,71) This uncertainty of visual identification further increases as particle size decreases, which illustrates the importance of verifying the chemical origin of potential microplastics.
To date, potential microplastics are identified mostly using spectroscopic (29,69,72) or thermal degradation analyses. (73−75) Particles sorted manually are mostly analyzed using attenuated total reflectance (ATR) Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, (49,58) but pyrolysis GC-MS is also applied. (73) Both techniques result in a clear identification but are restricted to bigger particles due to the manual particle handling. When aiming for microscopic particle determination, the coupling of a microscope to FTIR or Raman spectroscopy reveals the chemical identity of particles and allows particle sizes to be estimated. Both techniques are limited by a certain minimum particle size. (72,76,77) Alternatively, unsorted samples, i.e., where a polymer mixture might be present, can be analyzed using thermal degradation techniques. (74,75) Because particles are not sorted manually, these techniques are not limited by a minimum particle size required; however, they do not provide information on microplastic size either. Furthermore, they do provide information on ingested polymer masses instead of presenting the numbers of ingested microplastic particles. One of these techniques should be applied and should always be favored over the so-called “hot point-test” applied by several studies. (27,42,56) Plastic particles are “identified” when a particle shows a sticky dark mark when touched with a hot needle. However, this test does not allow polymer identification, is less suitable for thermoset and smaller plastics, and should therefore only be seen as a facilitation for visual sorting.

Representative Subsample of Particles

Many studies report polymer identities for a small subset of sorted particles only. (6,53) This leaves considerable uncertainty with respect to the actual distribution of polymer types among samples. On the basis of practical experience using ATR-FTIR to determine polymer identities, (6,16,46) we advise that when numbers of presorted particles are <100, all particles should be analyzed. For particle numbers >100, analysis becomes more laborious, but >50% should be identified for a representative subsample with a minimum of 100 particles being analyzed. The information given in the results section should contain the following: particle counts with confidence intervals, detection limits for the count and for minimum particle size, the polymer types determined, their percentages with regard to other polymer types and natural particles, and the microplastic size (classes).
If a study identified polymer identities and applied the latter criteria, 2 points were assigned. For insufficient numbers of identified particles that could result in an unrepresentative subsample, 1 point was assigned. Zero points were given if no polymer identification (i.e., purely visual sorting) was conducted.

Protocol for Microplastic Ingestion Studies in Biota

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

In this article, as a synthesis of our review and method assessment, we propose a standardized protocol for the detection of ingested microplastic in (marine) biota alongside the quality assessment method (Table 2). The protocol is adaptable for both vertebrates and invertebrates as long as the components of the quality assessment system are upheld. The protocol was developed taking the recommended protocol by ICES (2015) (42) into account and amending with knowledge and evaluation of currently existing methodologies as outlined above. The protocol and quality assessment system are such that, when following the protocol successfully, high reliability scores can be acquired. This protocol relies on the same literature analysis and argumentation as the assessment method and follows the categories step-by-step.

General Discussion

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

Considerable uncertainty with respect to methodology was observed and quantified via the scoring system. Accumulated reliability scores ranged from 0 to 15 out of a maximum of 20 with an average of 8.0 (Table 1). As mentioned before, the results of such an assessment are not an absolute judgment, and the results should not be used as a ranking list of the value of studies. The scores are an indicator of the usefulness of these studies for risk assessment and monitoring purposes with respect to natural populations. The assessment evaluates common characteristics of a variety of studies. Not all decisions in a study can be captured in the scoring system; therefore, it is still important to critically look at a study and reflect upon its plausibility and comparability to other studies and not just upon its results.
Often studies could not be assigned a high score due to missing information on certain characteristics, such as details of the sampling or analytical procedures. Average scores (n = 35) per evaluation criterion were especially low (<1) for the criterion “positive controls” (0.17), “clean air conditions” (0.40), “sample treatment” (0.43), “laboratory preparation” (0.57), “polymer identification” (0.66), and “negative controls” (0.86) (Table 1). By leaving out such essential information, a study immediately becomes irreproducible and thus less reliable. One reason for initiating the present review was to systematically define this crucial information, such that future studies can avoid this by using standardized consensus methods.
On the basis of the assessment of reviewed papers (considered representative for currently available knowledge, Table S3), we conclude that all reviewed studies are not fully reliable. All studies scored 0 in at least one category, indicating an uncertainty around at least one of its aspects. Therefore, the overall reliability scores, calculated as the product of individual scores, were all 0 and thus were not included in Table 1. Each category of the assessment was defined by the consideration that if its set criteria were not up to par, the possibility of contamination could not be excluded. This is problematic, and for future studies the use of the proposed protocol is strongly recommended to obtain reliable and reproducible results. Following the proposed protocol, we conducted a study focusing on microplastic detection in North Sea fish while giving special attention to quality assurance and full reportage. (46)
Our meta-analysis of microplastic ingestion data shows a wide variability among studies, which may be due to methodological, ecological, and/or spatial differences. Ingestion incidence ranges from 0 to 100% with confidence intervals that are narrower for higher sample sizes (Figure 1). On the basis of pooled data from all studies, an overall biota ingestion incidence of 16.6% (15.9–17.2 95% CI) was calculated. This “whole ocean” value can be interpreted as the percentage of the 13722 biota individuals sampled across all oceans in which microplastic was detected in the period of 2010–2017. The data underlying Figure 1 further reveal that, with sample sizes lower than 50, the confidence intervals can become as wide as 35–80% (Figure 1).

Perspective and Outlook

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

We provided an evaluation method for the quality of studies reporting microplastic ingestion by biota. The applied quality criteria were defined based on a critical review of the literature available. Current studies are not of such a level of reliability that they could be used confidently for risk assessment or monitoring of microplastic by biota in the natural environment. Reliable ingestion rate studies are needed to define whether there is a risk posed by microplastic ingestion to the natural environment and to human food-safety. The proposed protocol can be used to perform these studies; the quality assessment system can be applied to control the quality of these data and enable an easier comparison of studies to move toward standardization and reliability. The quality assessment system may provide a tool and set an example that will help regulators and policy makers in their activities to mitigate contamination with plastic debris. Until now, the majority of studies focused on visually sortable microplastics. Our present scoring system is tuned to this research aim and used today’s best available information. However, we foresee that our recommendations may need adaptations when the focus is on much smaller microplastic, which is more difficult to detect. It is also conceivable that our proposed scoring system needs modification if the research field evolves, for instance, when new analytical technologies become available, just like the aforementioned CRED criteria (31) can be seen as evolving from the original Klimisch criteria (30) for ecotoxicology studies. For now, all criteria were weighed equally as we considered all of them to be crucial for generating reliable results. Future research, however, may provide a rationale for using unequal weights, which thus would lead to another outcome of the scoring. Finally, we emphasize that a protocol and scoring system for microplastic analytical studies should be seen as a product of the scientific community rather than a product of a limited set of authors. In this sense, we see the present paper as a starting point in assessing quality assurance criteria for microplastic analytical studies rather than the final stage.

Supporting Information

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b01611.

  • Explanation and definition of scores and scoring of individual papers (PDF)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

  • Corresponding Author
  • Authors
    • Enya Hermsen - Aquatic Ecology and Water Quality Management Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands
    • Svenja M. Mintenig - Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The NetherlandsKWR Watercycle Research Institute, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
    • Ellen Besseling - Aquatic Ecology and Water Quality Management Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The NetherlandsWageningen Marine Research, IJmuiden, The NetherlandsOrcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-0686-2173
  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

S.M.M. and A.A.K. acknowledge funding from the Dutch Technology Foundation TTW (project number 13940) and additional support from KWR, IMARES, NVWA, RIKILT, the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, The Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, Wageningen Food & Biobased Research, STOWA, RIWA, and the Dutch water boards.

References

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

This article references 88 other publications.

  1. 1
    GESAMP Sources, fate and effects of microplastics in the marine environment: part two of a global assessment; Kershaw, P. J., Rochman, C. M., eds.; IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/ UNEP/UNDP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection; Rep. Stud. GESAMP, 2016; Vol. 93, p 220.
  2. 2
    Wright, S. L.; Thompson, R. C.; Galloway, T. S. The physical impacts of microplastics on marine organisms: A review. Environ. Pollut. 2013, 178, 483492,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.02.031
  3. 3
    Browne, M. A.; Galloway, T.; Thompson, R. Microplastic—an emerging contaminant of potential concern?. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manage. 2007, 3 (4), 559561,  DOI: 10.1002/ieam.5630030412
  4. 4
    Chen, Q.; Reisser, J.; Cunsolo, S.; Kwadijk, C.; Kotterman, M.; Proietti, M.; Slat, B.; Ferrari, F. F.; Schwarz, A.; Levivier, A.; Yin, D.; Hollert, H.; Koelmans, A. A. Pollutants in Plastics within the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52 (2), 446456,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b04682
  5. 5
    Lusher, A. L.; McHugh, M.; Thompson, R. C. Occurrence of microplastics in the gastrointestinal tract of pelagic and demersal fish from the English Channel. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2013, 67 (1), 9499,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.11.028
  6. 6
    Foekema, E. M.; De Gruijter, C.; Mergia, M. T.; van Franeker, J. A.; Murk, A. J.; Koelmans, A. A. Plastic in North Sea Fish. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47 (15), 88188824,  DOI: 10.1021/es400931b
  7. 7
    Neves, D.; Sobral, P.; Ferreira, J. L.; Pereira, T. Ingestion of microplastics by commercial fish off the Portuguese coast. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 101 (1), 119126,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.11.008
  8. 8
    Mathalon, A.; Hill, P. Microplastic fibers in the intertidal ecosystem surrounding Halifax Harbor, Nova Scotia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2014, 81 (1), 6979,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.02.018
  9. 9
    Romeo, T.; Pietro, B.; Pedà, C.; Consoli, P.; Andaloro, F.; Fossi, M. C. First evidence of presence of plastic debris in stomach of large pelagic fish in the Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 95 (1), 358361,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.04.048
  10. 10
    Lusher, A. Microplastics in the Marine Environment: Distribution, Interactions and Effects. In Marine Anthropogenic Litter; Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., Klages, M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, 2015; pp 245307.
  11. 11
    Teuten, E. L.; Saquing, J. M.; Knappe, D. R. U.; Barlaz, M. A.; Jonsson, S.; Björn, A.; Rowland, S. J.; Thompson, R. C.; Galloway, T. S.; Yamashita, R.; Ochi, D.; Watanuki, Y.; Moore, C.; Viet, P. H.; Tana, T. S.; Prudente, M.; Boonyatumanond, R.; Zakaria, M. P.; Akkhavong, K.; Ogata, Y.; Hirai, H.; Iwasa, S.; Mizukawa, K.; Hagino, Y.; Imamura, A.; Saha, M.; Takada, H. Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the environment and to wildlife. Philos. Trans. R. Soc., B 2009, 364 (1526), 20272045,  DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0284
  12. 12
    Mato, Y.; Isobe, T.; Takada, H.; Kanehiro, H.; Ohtake, C.; Kaminuma, T. Plastic resin pellets as a transport medium for toxic chemicals in the marine environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2001, 35 (2), 318324,  DOI: 10.1021/es0010498
  13. 13
    Diepens, N. J.; Koelmans, A. A. Accumulation of plastic debris and associated contaminants in aquatic food webs. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 85108520,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b02515
  14. 14
    Cozar, A.; Echevarria, F.; Gonzalez-Gordillo, J. I.; Irigoien, X.; Ubeda, B.; Hernandez-Leon, S.; Palma, A. T.; Navarro, S.; Garcia-de-Lomas, J.; Ruiz, A.; Fernandez-de-Puelles, M. L.; Duarte, C. M. Plastic debris in the open ocean. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2014, 111 (28), 1023910244,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1314705111
  15. 15
    Rochman, C. M.; Browne, M. A.; Underwood, A. J.; van Franeker, J. A.; Thompson, R. C. T.; Amaral-Zettler, L. A. The ecological impacts of marine debris: unraveling the demonstrated evidence from what is perceived. Ecology 2016, 97 (2), 302312,  DOI: 10.1890/14-2070.1
  16. 16
    Besseling, E.; Foekema, E. M.; Van Franeker, J. A.; Leopold, M. F.; Kuhn, S.; Rebolledo, E. L. B.; Hesse, E.; Mielke, L.; Ijzer, J.; Kamminga, P.; Koelmans, A. A. Microplastic in a macro filter feeder: Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 95 (1), 248252,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.04.007
  17. 17
    Lusher, A. L.; Hernandez-Milian, G.; Berrow, S.; Rogan, E.; O’Connor, I. Incidence of marine debris in cetaceans stranded and bycaught in Ireland: Recent findings and a review of historical knowledge. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 232, 467476,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.09.070
  18. 18
    Herzke, D.; Anker-Nilssen, T.; Nøst, T. H.; Götsch, A.; Christensen-Dalsgaard, S.; Langset, M.; Fangel, K.; Koelmans, A. A. Negligible Impact of Ingested Microplastics on Tissue Concentrations of Persistent Organic Pollutants in Northern Fulmars off Coastal Norway. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50 (4), 19241933,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b04663
  19. 19
    Koelmans, A. A. Modeling the Role of Microplastics in Bioaccumulation of Organic Chemicals to Marine Aquatic Organisms. A Critical Review. In Marine Anthropogenic Litter; Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., Klages, M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, 2015; pp 309324.
  20. 20
    Koelmans, A. A.; Besseling, E.; Wegner, A.; Foekema, E. M. Plastic as a Carrier of POPs to Aquatic Organisms: A Model Analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47 (14), 78127820,  DOI: 10.1021/es401169n
  21. 21
    Setälä, O.; Fleming-Lehtinen, V.; Lehtiniemi, M. Ingestion and transfer of microplastics in the planktonic food web. Environ. Pollut. 2014, 185 (0), 7783,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.10.013
  22. 22
    Farrell, P.; Nelson, K. Trophic level transfer of microplastic: Mytilus edulis (L.) to Carcinus maenas (L.). Environ. Pollut. 2013, 177, 13,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.01.046
  23. 23
    Wright, S. L.; Kelly, F. J. Plastic and Human Health: A Micro Issue?. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51 (12), 66346647,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b00423
  24. 24
    Filella, M. Questions of size and numbers in environmental research on microplastics: methodological and conceptual aspects. Environmental Chemistry 2015, 12 (5), 527538,  DOI: 10.1071/EN15012
  25. 25
    Connors, K. A.; Dyer, S. D.; Belanger, S. E. Advancing the quality of environmental microplastic research. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2017, 36 (7), 16971703,  DOI: 10.1002/etc.3829
  26. 26
    Hanvey, J. S.; Lewis, P. J.; Lavers, J. L.; Crosbie, N. D.; Pozo, K.; Clarke, B. O. A review of analytical techniques for quantifying microplastics in sediments. Anal. Methods 2017, 9 (9), 13691383,  DOI: 10.1039/C6AY02707E
  27. 27
    Vandermeersch, G.; Van Cauwenberghe, L.; Janssen, C. R.; Marques, A.; Granby, K.; Fait, G.; Kotterman, M. J. J.; Diogène, J.; Bekaert, K.; Robbens, J.; Devriese, L. A critical view on microplastic quantification in aquatic organisms. Environ. Res. 2015, 143, 4655,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2015.07.016
  28. 28
    Wesch, C.; Bredimus, K.; Paulus, M.; Klein, R. Towards the suitable monitoring of ingestion of microplastics by marine biota: A review. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 218, 12001208,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.08.076
  29. 29
    Löder, M. G. J.; Gerdts, G. Methodology Used for the Detection and Identification of Microplastics - A Critical Appraisal. In Marine Anthropogenic Litter; Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., Klages, M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Berlin, 2015; pp 201227.
  30. 30
    Klimisch, H. J.; Andreae, M.; Tillmann, U. A Systematic Approach for Evaluating the Quality of Experimental Toxicological and Ecotoxicological Data. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 1997, 25 (1), 15,  DOI: 10.1006/rtph.1996.1076
  31. 31
    Kase, R.; Korkaric, M.; Werner, I.; Ågerstrand, M. Criteria for Reporting and Evaluating ecotoxicity Data (CRED): comparison and perception of the Klimisch and CRED methods for evaluating reliability and relevance of ecotoxicity studies. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2016, 28 (1), 7,  DOI: 10.1186/s12302-016-0073-x
  32. 32
    Koelmans, A. A.; Besseling, E.; Foekema, E.; Kooi, M.; Mintenig, S.; Ossendorp, B. C.; Redondo-Hasselerharm, P. E.; Verschoor, A.; van Wezel, A. P.; Scheffer, M. Risks of Plastic Debris: Unravelling Fact, Opinion, Perception, and Belief. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51 (20), 1151311519,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b02219
  33. 33
    Brown, L. D.; Cai, T. T.; DasGupta, A. Interval Estimation for a Binomial Proportion. Statistical Science 2001, 16 (2), 101117,  DOI: 10.1214/ss/1009213286
  34. 34
    Kooi, M.; Nes, E. H. v.; Scheffer, M.; Koelmans, A. A. Ups and Downs in the Ocean: Effects of Biofouling on Vertical Transport of Microplastics. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51 (14), 79637971,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b04702
  35. 35
    Gall, S. C.; Thompson, R. C. The impact of debris on marine life. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 92 (1), 170179,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.12.041
  36. 36
    Claessens, M.; De Meester, S.; Van Landuyt, L.; De Clerck, K.; Janssen, C. R. Occurrence and distribution of microplastics in marine sediments along the Belgian coast. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62 (10), 2199204,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.06.030
  37. 37
    Woodall, L. C.; Gwinnett, C.; Packer, M.; Thompson, R. C.; Robinson, L. F.; Paterson, G. L. J. Using a forensic science approach to minimize environmental contamination and to identify microfibres in marine sediments. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 95 (1), 4046,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.04.044
  38. 38
    Van Cauwenberghe, L.; Vanreusel, A.; Mees, J.; Janssen, C. R. Microplastic pollution in deep-sea sediments. Environ. Pollut. 2013, 182, 495499,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.08.013
  39. 39
    Setälä, O.; Norkko, J.; Lehtiniemi, M. Feeding type affects microplastic ingestion in a coastal invertebrate community. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 102 (1), 95101,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.11.053
  40. 40
    Redondo-Hasselerharm, P. E.; Falahudin, D.; Peeters, E. T. H. M.; Koelmans, A. A. Microplastic Effect Thresholds for Freshwater Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52 (4), 22782286,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b05367
  41. 41
    Davison, P.; Asch, R. G. Plastic ingestion by mesopelagic fishes in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre. Mar. Ecol.: Prog. Ser. 2011, 432, 173180,  DOI: 10.3354/meps09142
  42. 42
    OSPAR request on development of a common monitoring protocol for plastic particles in fish stomachs and selected shellfish on the basis of existing fish disease surveys. IICES Advice 2015, 1, 16.
  43. 43
    Cannon, S. M. E.; Lavers, J. L.; Figueiredo, B. Plastic ingestion by fish in the Southern Hemisphere: A baseline study and review of methods. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 107, 286291,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.03.057
  44. 44
    Jabeen, K.; Su, L.; Li, J.; Yang, D.; Tong, C.; Mu, J.; Shi, H. Microplastics and mesoplastics in fish from coastal and fresh waters of China. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 221, 141149,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.11.055
  45. 45
    MSFD (Technical Subgroup on Marine Litter). Guidance on Monitoring of Marine Litter in European Seas , 2013.
  46. 46
    Hermsen, E.; Pompe, R.; Besseling, E.; Koelmans, A. A. Detection of low numbers of microplastics in North Sea fish using strict quality assurance criteria. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 122 (1), 253258,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.06.051
  47. 47
    Bellas, J.; Martínez-Armental, J.; Martínez-Cámara, A.; Besada, V.; Martínez-Gómez, C. Ingestion of microplastics by demersal fish from the Spanish Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 109 (1), 5560,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.06.026
  48. 48
    Lusher, A. L.; O’Donnell, C.; Officer, R.; O’Connor, I. Microplastic interactions with North Atlantic mesopelagic fish. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2016, 73 (4), 12141225,  DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsv241
  49. 49
    Courtene-Jones, W.; Quinn, B.; Murphy, F.; Gary, S. F.; Narayanaswamy, B. E. Optimisation of enzymatic digestion and validation of specimen preservation methods for the analysis of ingested microplastics. Anal. Methods 2017, 9, 14371445,  DOI: 10.1039/C6AY02343F
  50. 50
    Desforges, J.-P. W.; Galbraith, M.; Ross, P. S. Ingestion of Microplastics by Zooplankton in the Northeast Pacific Ocean. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2015, 69 (3), 320330,  DOI: 10.1007/s00244-015-0172-5
  51. 51
    Murray, F.; Cowie, P. R. Plastic contamination in the decapod crustacean Nephrops norvegicus (Linnaeus, 1758). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62 (6), 12071217,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.03.032
  52. 52
    Boerger, C. M.; Lattin, G. L.; Moore, S. L.; Moore, C. J. Plastic ingestion by planktivorous fishes in the North Pacific Central Gyre. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2010, 60 (12), 22752278,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.08.007
  53. 53
    Karlsson, T. M.; Vethaak, A. D.; Almroth, B. C.; Ariese, F.; van Velzen, M.; Hassellöv, M.; Leslie, H. A. Screening for microplastics in sediment, water, marine invertebrates and fish: Method development and microplastic accumulation. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 122 (1), 403408,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.06.081
  54. 54
    Torre, M.; Digka, N.; Anastasopoulou, A.; Tsangaris, C.; Mytilineou, C. Anthropogenic microfibres pollution in marine biota. A new and simple methodology to minimize airborne contamination. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 113 (1), 5561,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.07.050
  55. 55
    Liboiron, M.; Liboiron, F.; Wells, E.; Richárd, N.; Zahara, A.; Mather, C.; Bradshaw, H.; Murichi, J. Low plastic ingestion rate in Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) from Newfoundland destined for human consumption collected through citizen science methods. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 113 (1), 428437,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.10.043
  56. 56
    Devriese, L. I.; van der Meulen, M. D.; Maes, T.; Bekaert, K.; Paul-Pont, I.; Frère, L.; Robbens, J.; Vethaak, A. D. Microplastic contamination in brown shrimp (Crangon crangon, Linnaeus 1758) from coastal waters of the Southern North Sea and Channel area. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 98 (1), 179187,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.06.051
  57. 57
    Wesch, C.; Elert, A. M.; Wörner, M.; Braun, U.; Klein, R.; Paulus, M. Assuring quality in microplastic monitoring: About the value of clean-air devices as essentials for verified data. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7 (1), 5424,  DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-05838-4
  58. 58
    Rummel, C. D.; Löder, M. G. J.; Fricke, N. F.; Lang, T.; Griebeler, E. M.; Janke, M.; Gerdts, G. Plastic ingestion by pelagic and demersal fish from the North Sea and Baltic Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 102 (1), 134141,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.11.043
  59. 59
    Davidson, K.; Dudas, S. E. Microplastic Ingestion by Wild and Cultured Manila Clams (Venerupis philippinarum) from Baynes Sound, British Columbia. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2016, 71 (2), 147156,  DOI: 10.1007/s00244-016-0286-4
  60. 60
    Van Cauwenberghe, L.; Janssen, C. R. Microplastics in bivalves cultured for human consumption. Environ. Pollut. 2014, 193, 6570,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2014.06.010
  61. 61
    Löder, M. G. J.; Imhof, H. K.; Ladehoff, M.; Löschel, L. A.; Lorenz, C.; Mintenig, S.; Piehl, S.; Primpke, S.; Schrank, I.; Laforsch, C.; Gerdts, G. Enzymatic purification of microplastics in environmental samples. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51 (24), 1428314292,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b03055
  62. 62
    Dehaut, A.; Cassone, A.-L.; Frère, L.; Hermabessiere, L.; Himber, C.; Rinnert, E.; Rivière, G.; Lambert, C.; Soudant, P.; Huvet, A.; Duflos, G.; Paul-Pont, I. Microplastics in seafood: Benchmark protocol for their extraction and characterization. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 215, 223233,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.05.018
  63. 63
    Munno, K.; Helm, P. A.; Jackson, D. A.; Rochman, C.; Sims, A. Impacts of temperature and selected chemical digestion methods on microplastic particles. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2018, 37 (1), 9198,  DOI: 10.1002/etc.3935
  64. 64
    Kühn, S.; van Werven, B.; van Oyen, A.; Meijboom, A.; Bravo Rebolledo, E. L.; van Franeker, J. A. The use of potassium hydroxide (KOH) solution as a suitable approach to isolate plastics ingested by marine organisms. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 115 (1–2), 8690,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.11.034
  65. 65
    Cole, M.; Webb, H.; Lindeque, P.; Fileman, E. S.; Halsband, C.; Galloway, T. S. Isolation of microplastics in biota-rich seawater samples and marine organisms. Sci. Rep. 2015, 4 (4528), 18,  DOI: 10.1038/srep04528
  66. 66
    Catarino, A. I.; Thompson, R.; Sanderson, W.; Henry, T. B. Development and optimization of a standard method for extraction of microplastics in mussels by enzyme digestion of soft tissues. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2017, 36 (4), 947951,  DOI: 10.1002/etc.3608
  67. 67
    Law, K. L.; Moret-Ferguson, S. E.; Goodwin, D. S.; Zettler, E. R.; De Force, E.; Kukulka, T.; Proskurowski, G. Distribution of Surface Plastic Debris in the Eastern Pacific Ocean from an 11-Year Data Set. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48 (9), 47324738,  DOI: 10.1021/es4053076
  68. 68
    Eriksen, M.; Mason, S.; Wilson, S.; Box, C.; Zellers, A.; Edwards, W.; Farley, H.; Amato, S. Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2013, 77 (1–2), 17782,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.10.007
  69. 69
    Imhof, H. K.; Laforsch, C.; Wiesheu, A. C.; Schmid, J.; Anger, P. M.; Niessner, R.; Ivleva, N. P. Pigments and plastic in limnetic ecosystems: A qualitative and quantitative study on microparticles of different size classes. Water Res. 2016, 98, 6474,  DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2016.03.015
  70. 70
    Peters, C. A.; Thomas, P. A.; Rieper, K. B.; Bratton, S. P. Foraging preferences influence microplastic ingestion by six marine fish species from the Texas Gulf Coast. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 124 (1), 8288,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.06.080
  71. 71
    Remy, F.; Collard, F.; Gilbert, B.; Compère, P.; Eppe, G.; Lepoint, G. When Microplastic Is Not Plastic: The Ingestion of Artificial Cellulose Fibers by Macrofauna Living in Seagrass Macrophytodetritus. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49 (18), 1115811166,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b02005
  72. 72
    Käppler, A.; Windrich, F.; Loder, M. G. J.; Malanin, M.; Fischer, D.; Labrenz, M.; Eichhorn, K. J.; Voit, B. Identification of microplastics by FTIR and Raman microscopy: a novel silicon filter substrate opens the important spectral range below 1300 cm(−1) for FTIR transmission measurements. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2015, 407 (22), 67916801,  DOI: 10.1007/s00216-015-8850-8
  73. 73
    Fries, E.; Dekiff, J. H.; Willmeyer, J.; Nuelle, M. T.; Ebert, M.; Remy, D. Identification of polymer types and additives in marine microplastic particles using pyrolysis-GC/MS and scanning electron microscopy. Environmental Science-Processes & Impacts 2013, 15 (10), 19491956,  DOI: 10.1039/c3em00214d
  74. 74
    Dümichen, E.; Eisentraut, P.; Bannick, C. G.; Barthel, A.-K.; Senz, R.; Braun, U. Fast identification of microplastics in complex environmental samples by a thermal degradation method. Chemosphere 2017, 174, 572584,  DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.02.010
  75. 75
    Fischer, M.; Scholz-Böttcher, B. M. Simultaneous Trace Identification and Quantification of Common Types of Microplastics in Environmental Samples by Pyrolysis-Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51 (9), 50525060,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b06362
  76. 76
    Löder, M. G. J.; Kuczera, M.; Mintenig, S.; Lorenz, C.; Gerdts, G. Focal plane array detector-based micro-Fourier-transform infrared imaging for the analysis of microplastics in environmental samples. Environmental Chemistry 2015, 12 (5), 563581,  DOI: 10.1071/EN14205
  77. 77
    Mintenig, S. M.; Bauerlein, P. S.; Koelmans, A. A.; Dekker, S. C.; van Wezel, A. P. Closing the gap between small and smaller: towards a framework to analyse nano- and microplastics in aqueous environmental samples. Environ. Sci.: Nano 2018, 5, 16401649,  DOI: 10.1039/C8EN00186C
  78. 78
    Tanaka, K.; Takada, H. Microplastic fragments and microbeads in digestive tracts of planktivorous fish from urban coastal waters. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 34351,  DOI: 10.1038/srep34351
  79. 79
    Wesch, C.; Barthel, A. K.; Braun, U.; Klein, R.; Paulus, M. No microplastics in benthic eelpout (Zoarces viviparus): An urgent need for spectroscopic analyses in microplastic detection. Environ. Res. 2016, 148, 3638,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2016.03.017
  80. 80
    Li, J.; Yang, D.; Li, L.; Jabeen, K.; Shi, H. Microplastics in commercial bivalves from China. Environ. Pollut. 2015, 207, 190195,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2015.09.018
  81. 81
    Murphy, F.; Russell, M.; Ewins, C.; Quinn, B. The uptake of macroplastic & microplastic by demersal & pelagic fish in the Northeast Atlantic around Scotland. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 122 (1), 353359,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.06.073
  82. 82
    Nadal, M. A.; Alomar, C.; Deudero, S. High levels of microplastic ingestion by the semipelagic fish bogue Boops boops (L.) around the Balearic Islands. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 214, 517523,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.04.054
  83. 83
    Bråte, I. L. N.; Eidsvoll, D. P.; Steindal, C. C.; Thomas, K. V. Plastic ingestion by Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) from the Norwegian coast. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 112 (1), 105110,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.08.034
  84. 84
    Anastasopoulou, A.; Mytilineou, C.; Smith, C. J.; Papadopoulou, K. N. Plastic debris ingested by deep-water fish of the Ionian Sea (Eastern Mediterranean). Deep Sea Res., Part I 2013, 74 (0), 1113,  DOI: 10.1016/j.dsr.2012.12.008
  85. 85
    Jantz, L. A.; Morishige, C. L.; Bruland, G. L.; Lepczyk, C. A. Ingestion of plastic marine debris by longnose lancetfish (Alepisaurus ferox) in the North Pacific Ocean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2013, 69 (1), 97104,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.01.019
  86. 86
    Vendel, A. L.; Bessa, F.; Alves, V. E. N.; Amorim, A. L. A.; Patrício, J.; Palma, A. R. T. Widespread microplastic ingestion by fish assemblages in tropical estuaries subjected to anthropogenic pressures. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 117 (1), 448455,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.01.081
  87. 87
    Wójcik-Fudalewska, D.; Normant-Saremba, M.; Anastácio, P. Occurrence of plastic debris in the stomach of the invasive crab Eriocheir sinensis. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 113 (1), 306311,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.09.059
  88. 88
    Miranda, D. d. A.; de Carvalho-Souza, G. F. Are we eating plastic-ingesting fish?. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 103 (1), 109114,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.12.035

Cited By

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

This article is cited by 363 publications.

  1. Denise M. Mitrano, Miriam L. Diamond, Jae-Hong Kim, Kam Chiu Tam, Min Yang, Zhanyun Wang. Balancing New Approaches and Harmonized Techniques in Nano- and Microplastics Research. ACS ES&T Water 2023, 3 (8) , 1972-1975. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.3c00282
  2. Denise M. Mitrano, Miriam L. Diamond, Jae-Hong Kim, Kam Chiu Tam, Min Yang, Zhanyun Wang. Balancing New Approaches and Harmonized Techniques in Nano- and Microplastics Research. Environmental Science & Technology Letters 2023, 10 (8) , 618-621. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.3c00359
  3. Denise M. Mitrano, Miriam L. Diamond, Jae-Hong Kim, Kam Chiu Tam, Min Yang, Zhanyun Wang. Balancing New Approaches and Harmonized Techniques in Nano- and Microplastics Research. ACS ES&T Engineering 2023, 3 (7) , 906-909. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestengg.3c00220
  4. Denise M. Mitrano, Miriam L. Diamond, Jae-Hong Kim, Kam Chiu Tam, Min Yang, Zhanyun Wang. Balancing New Approaches and Harmonized Techniques in Nano- and Microplastics Research. Environmental Science & Technology 2023, 57 (24) , 8841-8844. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c04120
  5. Denise M. Mitrano, Miriam L. Diamond, Jae-Hong Kim, Kam Chiu Tam, Min Yang, Zhanyun Wang. Balancing New Approaches and Harmonized Techniques in Nano- and Microplastics Research. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2023, 11 (24) , 8702-8705. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c03221
  6. Róisín Nash, Haleigh Joyce, Elena Pagter, João Frias, Janine Guinan, Louise Healy, Fiona Kavanagh, Malcolm Deegan, David O’Sullivan. Deep Sea Microplastic Pollution Extends Out to Sediments in the Northeast Atlantic Ocean Margins. Environmental Science & Technology 2023, 57 (1) , 201-213. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c05926
  7. Vanessa Morgado, Carla Palma, Ricardo J. N. Bettencourt da Silva. Bottom-Up Evaluation of the Uncertainty of the Quantification of Microplastics Contamination in Sediment Samples. Environmental Science & Technology 2022, 56 (15) , 11080-11090. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c01828
  8. Zoë Harrold, Monica M. Arienzo, Meghan Collins, Julia M. Davidson, Xuelian Bai, Suja Sukumaran, John Umek. A Peristaltic Pump and Filter-Based Method for Aqueous Microplastic Sampling and Analysis. ACS ES&T Water 2022, 2 (2) , 268-277. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.1c00270
  9. Mengyu Bai, Yan Lin, Rachel R. Hurley, Lixin Zhu, Daoji Li. Controlling Factors of Microplastic Riverine Flux and Implications for Reliable Monitoring Strategy. Environmental Science & Technology 2022, 56 (1) , 48-61. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c04957
  10. Chang-Gui Pan, Svenja M. Mintenig, Paula E. Redondo-Hasselerharm, Paula H. M. W. Neijenhuis, Ke-Fu Yu, Ying-Hui Wang, Albert A. Koelmans. Automated μFTIR Imaging Demonstrates Taxon-Specific and Selective Uptake of Microplastic by Freshwater Invertebrates. Environmental Science & Technology 2021, 55 (14) , 9916-9925. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c03119
  11. Xiao-Xia Zhou, Shuai He, Yan Gao, Ze-Chen Li, Hai-Yuan Chi, Cheng-Jun Li, Du-Jia Wang, Bing Yan. Protein Corona-Mediated Extraction for Quantitative Analysis of Nanoplastics in Environmental Waters by Pyrolysis Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry. Analytical Chemistry 2021, 93 (17) , 6698-6705. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.1c00156
  12. Nur Hazimah Mohamed Nor, Merel Kooi, Noël J. Diepens, Albert A. Koelmans. Lifetime Accumulation of Microplastic in Children and Adults. Environmental Science & Technology 2021, 55 (8) , 5084-5096. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c07384
  13. Jiaxin Feng, Hansen Zhao, Xiaoyun Gong, Meng-Chan Xia, Lesi Cai, Huan Yao, Xu Zhao, Zihe Yan, Zhanping Li, Honggang Nie, Xiaoxiao Ma, Sichun Zhang. In Situ Identification and Spatial Mapping of Microplastic Standards in Paramecia by Secondary-Ion Mass Spectrometry Imaging. Analytical Chemistry 2021, 93 (13) , 5521-5528. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.0c05383
  14. Francisca Ribeiro, Elvis D. Okoffo, Jake W. O’Brien, Sarah Fraissinet-Tachet, Stacey O’Brien, Michael Gallen, Saer Samanipour, Sarit Kaserzon, Jochen F. Mueller, Tamara Galloway, Kevin V. Thomas. Response to Comment on “Quantitative Analysis of Selected Plastics in High-Commercial-Value Australian Seafood by Pyrolysis Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry”. Environmental Science & Technology 2020, 54 (23) , 15556-15557. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c07097
  15. Vera N. de Ruijter, Paula E. Redondo-Hasselerharm, Todd Gouin, Albert A. Koelmans. Quality Criteria for Microplastic Effect Studies in the Context of Risk Assessment: A Critical Review. Environmental Science & Technology 2020, 54 (19) , 11692-11705. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c03057
  16. Francisca Ribeiro, Elvis D. Okoffo, Jake W. O’Brien, Sarah Fraissinet-Tachet, Stacey O’Brien, Michael Gallen, Saer Samanipour, Sarit Kaserzon, Jochen F. Mueller, Tamara Galloway, Kevin V. Thomas. Quantitative Analysis of Selected Plastics in High-Commercial-Value Australian Seafood by Pyrolysis Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry. Environmental Science & Technology 2020, 54 (15) , 9408-9417. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c02337
  17. Dounia Elkhatib, Vinka Oyanedel-Craver. A Critical Review of Extraction and Identification Methods of Microplastics in Wastewater and Drinking Water. Environmental Science & Technology 2020, 54 (12) , 7037-7049. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b06672
  18. Jeff Wagner, Zhong-Min Wang, Sutapa Ghosal, Margaret Murphy, Stephen Wall, Anna-Marie Cook, William Robberson, Harry Allen. Nondestructive Extraction and Identification of Microplastics from Freshwater Sport Fish Stomachs. Environmental Science & Technology 2019, 53 (24) , 14496-14506. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b05072
  19. Xiangzhen Kong, Albert A. Koelmans. Modeling Decreased Resilience of Shallow Lake Ecosystems toward Eutrophication due to Microplastic Ingestion across the Food Web. Environmental Science & Technology 2019, 53 (23) , 13822-13831. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b03905
  20. France Collard, Johnny Gasperi, Geir W. Gabrielsen, Bruno Tassin. Plastic Particle Ingestion by Wild Freshwater Fish: A Critical Review. Environmental Science & Technology 2019, 53 (22) , 12974-12988. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b03083
  21. Brian Nguyen, Dominique Claveau-Mallet, Laura M. Hernandez, Elvis Genbo Xu, Jeffrey M. Farner, Nathalie Tufenkji. Separation and Analysis of Microplastics and Nanoplastics in Complex Environmental Samples. Accounts of Chemical Research 2019, 52 (4) , 858-866. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.accounts.8b00602
  22. Xiao-xia Zhou, Li-teng Hao, Huang-ying-zi Wang, Ying-jie Li, Jing-fu Liu. Cloud-Point Extraction Combined with Thermal Degradation for Nanoplastic Analysis Using Pyrolysis Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry. Analytical Chemistry 2019, 91 (3) , 1785-1790. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.8b04729
  23. Nelle Meyers, Kathrin Kopke, Natalja Buhhalko, Karin Mattsson, Colin R. Janssen, Gert Everaert, Bavo De Witte. Value for money: a cost-effectiveness analysis of microplastic analytics in seawater. Microplastics and Nanoplastics 2024, 4 (1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s43591-024-00081-x
  24. David Vanavermaete, Amy Lusher, Jakob Strand, Esteban Abad, Marinella Farré, Emilie Kallenbach, Michael Dekimpe, Katrien Verlé, Sebastian Primpke, Stefano Aliani, Bavo De Witte. Plastics in biota: technological readiness level of current methodologies. Microplastics and Nanoplastics 2024, 4 (1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s43591-024-00083-9
  25. Yueping Zheng, Sirui Huang, Houyong Fan, Hanqi Liu, Jianan Xu, Nicholas J. Craig, Juan-Ying Li, Wenhui He, Lei Su. Microplastics in different tissues of historical and live samples of endangered mega-fish (Acipenser sinensis) and their potential relevance to exposure pathways. Aquatic Toxicology 2024, 272 , 106943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2024.106943
  26. Zeliang Su, Liangfu Wei, Linyong Zhi, Xiaomei Huang, Xu Wang, Jun Wang. Microplastics in aquafeeds: Occurrence, sources, effects and considerations for aquatic food production. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry 2024, 176 , 117760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2024.117760
  27. Vania Aparecida Sacco, Natana Raquel Zuanazzi, Amanda Selinger, João Henrique Alliprandini da Costa, Érika Spanhol Lemunie, Camila Luiza Comelli, Vinícius Abilhoa, Fernando Carlos de Sousa, Luis Fernando Fávaro, Lorena M. Rios Mendoza, Nédia de Castilhos Ghisi, Rosilene Luciana Delariva. What are the global patterns of microplastic ingestion by fish? A scientometric review. Environmental Pollution 2024, 350 , 123972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2024.123972
  28. Prabhakar Sharma, Prateek Sharma, Kumar Abhishek. Sampling, separation, and characterization methodology for quantification of microplastic from the environment. Journal of Hazardous Materials Advances 2024, 14 , 100416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hazadv.2024.100416
  29. Elvis D. Okoffo, Kevin V. Thomas. Mass quantification of nanoplastics at wastewater treatment plants by pyrolysis–gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. Water Research 2024, 254 , 121397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2024.121397
  30. Sijia Gao, Natalie Orlowski, Franziska Kristin Bopf, Lutz Breuer. A review on microplastics in major European rivers. WIREs Water 2024, 11 (3) https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1713
  31. Parisa Falakdin, Adrian Lopez-Rosales, Jose Andrade, Elisa Terzaghi, Antonio Di Guardo, Soledad Muniategui-Lorenzo. Comparison of microplastic type, size, and composition in atmospheric and foliage samples in an urban scenario. Environmental Pollution 2024, 349 , 123911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2024.123911
  32. Cui-Lan Bai, Dan Wang, Yu-Ling Luan, Si-Nan Huang, Liang-Ying Liu, Ying Guo. A review on micro- and nanoplastics in humans: Implication for their translocation of barriers and potential health effects. Chemosphere 2024, 403 , 142424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2024.142424
  33. Paula E. Redondo-Hasselerharm, Andreu Rico, Esperanza Huerta Lwanga, Cornelis A.M. van Gestel, Albert A. Koelmans. Source-specific probabilistic risk assessment of microplastics in soils applying quality criteria and data alignment methods. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2024, 467 , 133732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.133732
  34. Natalya S. Salikova, Javier Rodrigo-Ilarri, Lyudmila A. Makeyeva, María-Elena Rodrigo-Clavero, Zhulduz O. Tleuova, Anar D. Makhmutova. Monitoring of Microplastics in Water and Sediment Samples of Lakes and Rivers of the Akmola Region (Kazakhstan). Water 2024, 16 (7) , 1051. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16071051
  35. Nina R. Jones, Alix M. de Jersey, Jennifer L. Lavers, Thomas Rodemann, Jack Rivers-Auty. Identifying laboratory sources of microplastic and nanoplastic contamination from the air, water, and consumables. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2024, 465 , 133276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.133276
  36. Yinan He, Jungang Lu, Changjun Li, Xiaohui Wang, Chunhua Jiang, Lixin Zhu, Xinyu Bu, Khalida Jabeen, TuanLinh Tran Vo, Daoji Li. From pollution to solutions: Insights into the sources, transport and management of plastic debris in pristine and urban rivers. Environmental Research 2024, 245 , 118024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2023.118024
  37. João Frias, Haleigh Joyce, Loann Brozzetti, Elena Pagter, Mateja Švonja, Fiona Kavangh, Róisín Nash. Spatial monitoring of microplastics in environmental matrices from Galway Bay, Ireland. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2024, 200 , 116153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2024.116153
  38. Narges Nejat, Masoud Sattari, Reza Mohsenpour, Xiaotao Shi, Majid Rasta. Microplastics abundance, distribution and composition in surface waters, sediments and fish species from Amir˗Kalayeh Wetland, Northern Iran. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2024, 31 (14) , 22024-22037. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-32627-0
  39. Pazhamthavalathil Anil Athulya, Yojana Waychal, Andres Rodriguez-Seijo, Sandhya Devalla, C. George Priya Doss, Natarajan Chandrasekaran. Microplastic interactions in the agroecosystems: methodological advances and limitations in quantifying microplastics from agricultural soil. Environmental Geochemistry and Health 2024, 46 (3) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-023-01800-8
  40. Anita Jemec Kokalj, Gabriela Kalčíková, Salla Selonen, Thijs Bosker, Damjana Drobne, Darina Dvořáková, Jakub Hofman, Rachel Hurley, Sarmite Kernchen, Christian Laforsch, Martin G.J. Löder, Sam van Loon, Paula E. Redondo-Hasselerharm, Vili Saartama, Klára Šmídová, Aristeidis S. Tsagkaris, Laura J. Zantis, Luca Nizzetto, Cornelis A.M. van Gestel. Strategy towards producing relevant and reliable data for the hazard assessment of micro- and nanoplastics in agricultural soils. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry 2024, 172 , 117567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2024.117567
  41. Xiaoping Sun, Ruiping Yang, Jing Ji, Zebin Zhu, Jason C. White, Yu Shen. An Evaluation of Microplastic Contamination in the Marine Waters and Species in the Coastal Region of the South Yellow Sea, China. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2024, 6 , 134018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.134018
  42. Siting Wang, Svenja M. Mintenig, Cheng Cheng, Jing Wu, Albert A. Koelmans. Extent and risks of microplastic pollution in the Yangtze River. State of the science. Science of The Total Environment 2024, 910 , 168538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.168538
  43. Yonghao Sun, Jun Zhang, Zhoujie Jiang, Yi Wang, Peng Duan, Wei Min, Weicheng Zhang. Polystyrene microplastics enhance oxidative dissolution but suppress the aquatic acute toxicity of a commercial cadmium yellow pigment under simulated irradiation. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2024, 463 , 132881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.132881
  44. Elvis D. Okoffo, Kevin V. Thomas. Quantitative analysis of nanoplastics in environmental and potable waters by pyrolysis-gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2024, 464 , 133013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.133013
  45. Mansoor Ahmad Bhat, Eftade O. Gaga, Kadir Gedik. How can contamination be prevented during laboratory analysis of atmospheric samples for microplastics?. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 2024, 196 (2) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-024-12345-3
  46. Chiara Malloggi, Luca Nalbone, Silvia Bartalena, Margherita Guidi, Carlo Corradini, Antonino Foti, Pietro G. Gucciardi, Filippo Giarratana, Francesca Susini, Andrea Armani. The Occurrence of Microplastics in Donax trunculus (Mollusca: Bivalvia) Collected along the Tuscany Coast (Mediterranean Sea). Animals 2024, 14 (4) , 618. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14040618
  47. Hsuan-Cheng Lu, Julia L. Smith, Shima Ziajahromi, Frederic D.L. Leusch. Microplastics and other anthropogenic fibres in large apex shark species: Abundance, characteristics, and recommendations for future research. Chemosphere 2024, 349 , 140957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.140957
  48. Angel Negrete Velasco, Alicia Ellero, Stéphan Ramseier Gentile, Stéphane Zimmermann, Pascal Ramaciotti, Serge Stoll. Impact of a nanofiltration system on microplastic contamination in Geneva groundwater (Switzerland). Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2024, 84 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-31940-y
  49. Katherine R. Shaw, Jonathan L. Whitney, Eileen M. Nalley, Madeline C. Schmidbauer, Megan J. Donahue, Jesse Black, Raquel N. Corniuk, Kellie Teague, Rachel Sandquist, Catherine Pirkle, Rachel Dacks, Max Sudnovsky, Jennifer M. Lynch. Microplastics absent from reef fish in the Marshall Islands: Multistage screening methods reduced false positives. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2024, 198 , 115820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.115820
  50. Juan-Ying Li, Yang Yu, Nicholas J. Craig, Wenhui He, Lei Su. Interactions between microplastics and insects in terrestrial ecosystems—A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2024, 462 , 132783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.132783
  51. Said M Hashim, Md. Jahangir Alam, Zijiang Yang, Hisayuki Arakawa. Microplastic assessment in the benthic ecosystem of Tokyo Bay: Sediment, water, and macrobenthic perspectives. Regional Studies in Marine Science 2024, 10 , 103384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2024.103384
  52. Walter R. Waldman, Cristiane Vidal, Mariana A. Dias, Victor Z. Resende, Cassiana C. Montagner. Detection and Identification of Microplastics in Food and the Environment. 2024, 57-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-3613-8_3
  53. Fulya Dal Yöntem, Müfide Aydoğan Ahbab. Mitochondria as a target of micro- and nanoplastic toxicity. Cambridge Prisms: Plastics 2024, 2 https://doi.org/10.1017/plc.2024.6
  54. Patricia Holm, Gabriel Erni Cassola, kevin Leuenberger, Clara Leistenschneider. Microplastic Ingestion in Five Demersal, Bathydemersal and Bathypelagic Fish Species from the Eastern Weddell Sea, Antarctica. 2024https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4809292
  55. Wei Gao, Xue-Jiao Deng, Jun Zhang, Lin Qi, Xiu-Qing Zhao, Peng-Yu Zhang. Assessment of quality control measures in the monitoring of microplastic: a critical review. Environmental Pollutants and Bioavailability 2023, 35 (1) https://doi.org/10.1080/26395940.2023.2203349
  56. Alexandre DEHAUT, Guillaume DUFLOS. Microplastics. 2023, 187-227. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394264728.ch7
  57. Tainá Fonseca, Carlos Edo, Juliano M. Vilke, Marina Astudillo-Pascual, Joanna M. Gonçalves, Maria J. Bebianno. Impact of face masks weathering on the mussels Mytilus galloprovincialis. Water Emerging Contaminants & Nanoplastics 2023, 3 (1) https://doi.org/10.20517/wecn.2023.57
  58. L Hermabessiere, C Thaysen, C Sherlock, CA Choy, CM Rochman. Little evidence for bioaccumulation or biomagnification of microplastics in a deep-sea food web. Marine Ecology Progress Series 2023, 724 , 17-32. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps14458
  59. Barbara Beckingham, Adriana Apintiloaiei, Caroline Moore, Jay Brandes. Hot or not: systematic review and laboratory evaluation of the hot needle test for microplastic identification. Microplastics and Nanoplastics 2023, 3 (1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s43591-023-00056-4
  60. Uwe Schnepf, Maria Anna Lioba von Moers-Meßmer, Franz Brümmer. A practical primer for image-based particle measurements in microplastic research. Microplastics and Nanoplastics 2023, 3 (1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s43591-023-00064-4
  61. Ebenezer S. Nyadjro, Jennifer A. B. Webster, Tim P. Boyer, Just Cebrian, Leonard Collazo, Gunnar Kaltenberger, Kirsten Larsen, Yee H. Lau, Paul Mickle, Tiffany Toft, Zhankun Wang. The NOAA NCEI marine microplastics database. Scientific Data 2023, 10 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02632-y
  62. Faruk Galyon, Ayla Ünver Alçay. Microplastic contamination in raw mussels collected in Istanbul. Regional Studies in Marine Science 2023, 68 , 103280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2023.103280
  63. Helge Torbjørn Bull Hove, Thomas Næsheim, Tanja Kögel. Quick and efficient microplastic isolation from fatty fish tissues by surfactant-enhanced alkaline digestion. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2023, 197 , 115726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.115726
  64. Mansoor Ahmad Bhat. Indoor microplastics: a comprehensive review and bibliometric analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2023, 30 (58) , 121269-121291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-30902-0
  65. Simone Cavazzoli, Roberta Ferrentino, Costanza Scopetani, Mathilde Monperrus, Gianni Andreottola. Analysis of micro- and nanoplastics in wastewater treatment plants: key steps and environmental risk considerations. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 2023, 195 (12) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-023-12030-x
  66. Sandra E. Shumway, Kayla Mladinich, Noreen Blaschik, Bridget A. Holohan, J. Evan Ward. A Critical Assessment of Microplastics in Molluscan Shellfish with Recommendations for Experimental Protocols, Animal Husbandry, Publication, and Future Research. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture 2023, 2202 , 1-133. https://doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2023.2216301
  67. Stanley Iheanacho, Miracle Ogbu, Md Simul Bhuyan, Johnny Ogunji. Microplastic pollution: An emerging contaminant in aquaculture. Aquaculture and Fisheries 2023, 8 (6) , 603-616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaf.2023.01.007
  68. Gökben Başaran Kankılıç, İdris Koraltan, Belda Erkmen, Ali Serhan Çağan, Tamer Çırak, Mihriban Özen, Melike Seyfe, Ahmet Altındağ, Ülkü Nihan Tavşanoğlu. Size-selective microplastic uptake by freshwater organisms: Fish, mussel, and zooplankton. Environmental Pollution 2023, 336 , 122445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2023.122445
  69. Xiaohui Lin, Aoife A. Gowen, Hongbin Pu, Jun-Li Xu. Microplastic contamination in fish: Critical review and assessment of data quality. Food Control 2023, 153 , 109939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2023.109939
  70. Caitlin Brawn, Bonnie M. Hamilton, Matthew S. Savoca, Birkir Bardarson, Jesse C. Vermaire, Jennifer Provencher. Suspected anthropogenic microparticle ingestion by Icelandic capelin. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2023, 196 , 115551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.115551
  71. Majid Rasta, Ali Khodadoust, Mohammad Reza Rahimibashar, Mojtaba S. Taleshi, Masoud Sattari. Microplastic Pollution in the Gastrointestinal Tract and Gills of Some Teleost and Sturgeon Fish from the Caspian Sea, Northern Iran. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 2023, 42 (11) , 2453-2465. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5725
  72. Ülgen Aytan, F. Basak Esensoy, Esra Arifoğlu, Zeynep Z. Ipek, Cüneyt Kaya. Plastics in an endemic fish species (Alburnus sellal) and its parasite (Ligula intestinalis) in the Upper Tigris River, Türkiye. Science of The Total Environment 2023, 900 , 165604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165604
  73. Yi Gong, Xuemin Huang, Zezheng Li, Yongfu Shen, Yunkai Li, Jiangfeng Zhu, Feng Wu. Plastic ingestion and trophic transfer in an endangered top predator, the longfin mako shark (Isurus paucus), from the tropical western Pacific Ocean. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2023, 30 (49) , 107365-107370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-25532-5
  74. Huike Dong, Xiaoping Wang, Xuerui Niu, Jiamin Zeng, Yunqiao Zhou, Zhuoga Suona, Yuefu Yuan, Xu Chen. Overview of analytical methods for the determination of microplastics: Current status and trends. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry 2023, 167 , 117261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2023.117261
  75. Javier Bayo, Joaquín López-Castellanos, Sonia Olmos, Dolores Rojo. Characterization and removal efficiencies of microplastics discharged from sewage treatment plants in Southeast Spain. Water Research 2023, 244 , 120479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2023.120479
  76. Haleigh Joyce, Róisín Nash, João Frias, Jonathan White, Alessandro Cau, Ester Carreras-Colom, Fiona Kavanagh. Monitoring microplastic pollution: The potential and limitations of Nephrops norvegicus. Ecological Indicators 2023, 154 , 110441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110441
  77. Raffaele Bruschi, Paolo Pastorino, Damià Barceló, Monia Renzi. Microplastic levels and sentinel species used to monitor the environmental quality of lagoons: A state of the art in Italy. Ecological Indicators 2023, 154 , 110596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110596
  78. Nafiaah Naqash, Rahul Singh. Challenges to the Analysis of Microplastic Pollution from the Environment. 2023, 173-196. https://doi.org/10.2174/9789815165104123010012
  79. Y. Y. Chen, X. T. Cheng, Y. Q. Zeng. The occurrence of microplastic in aquatic environment and toxic effects for organisms. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 2023, 20 (9) , 10477-10490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-023-04789-w
  80. Clara Lopes, Cátia Figueiredo, Miguel Baptista, Miguel Caetano, Miguel M. Santos, Joana Raimundo. First evidence of microplastic ingestion in the ocean giant sunfish (Mola mola). Marine Environmental Research 2023, 190 , 106064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2023.106064
  81. Antonietta Specchiulli, Paolo Pastorino, Gianluca De Rinaldis, Tommaso Scirocco, Serena Anselmi, Lucrezia Cilenti, Nicola Ungaro, Monia Renzi. Multiple approach for assessing lagoon environmental status based on water bodies quality indices and microplastics accumulation. Science of The Total Environment 2023, 892 , 164228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.164228
  82. Zhenghua Duan, Jing Wang, Haihong Zhang, Yudi Wang, Yizhuo Chen, Jiaoyue Cong, Zhiyuan Gong, Hongwen Sun, Lei Wang. Elevated temperature decreases cardiovascular toxicity of nanoplastics but adds to their lethality: A case study during zebrafish (Danio rerio) development. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2023, 458 , 131679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.131679
  83. Lihua Pang, Qianhui Lin, Shasha Zhao, Hao Zheng, Chenguang Li, Jing Zhang, Cuizhu Sun, Lingyun Chen, Fengmin Li. Data quality assessment for studies investigating microplastics and nanoplastics in food products: Are current data reliable?. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering 2023, 17 (8) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-023-1694-0
  84. Huy Hoang Phan Quang, Duc Anh Dinh, Vishal Dutta, Ankush Chauhan, Sudip Kumar Lahiri, C. Gopalakrishnan, Arunkumar Radhakrishnan, Khalid Mujasam Batoo, Lan-Anh Phan Thi. Current approaches, and challenges on identification, remediation and potential risks of emerging plastic contaminants: A review. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology 2023, 101 , 104193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etap.2023.104193
  85. Christina Carrozzo Hellevik, Jakob Bonnevie Cyvin. Plastic pollution: about time to unify research methods and demand systemic changes. Frontiers in Environmental Science 2023, 11 https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1232974
  86. Oluniyi O. Fadare, Leisha Martin, Nigel Lascelles, Jessica T. Myers, Karl Kaiser, Wei Xu, Jeremy L. Conkle. Binary solvent extraction of microplastics from a complex environmental matrix. Limnology and Oceanography: Methods 2023, 21 (7) , 414-420. https://doi.org/10.1002/lom3.10554
  87. Batuhan Olguner, Ayşegül Mülayim, Serda Kecel Gündüz. Microplastic concentration in the sediment of the Istanbul Strait (the Sea of Marmara, Türkiye). Journal of Soils and Sediments 2023, 23 (7) , 2892-2904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-023-03550-7
  88. Anton F. Astner, Alexis B. Gillmore, Yingxue Yu, Markus Flury, Jennifer M. DeBruyn, Sean M. Schaeffer, Douglas G. Hayes. Formation, behavior, properties and impact of micro- and nanoplastics on agricultural soil ecosystems (A Review). NanoImpact 2023, 31 , 100474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2023.100474
  89. Kayla Mladinich, Bridget A. Holohan, Sandra E. Shumway, J. Evan Ward. The relationship between microplastics in eastern oysters (Crassostrea virginica) and surrounding environmental compartments in Long Island Sound. Marine Environmental Research 2023, 189 , 106040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2023.106040
  90. Alicia Herrera, Andrea Acosta-Dacal, Octavio Pérez-Luzardo, Ico Martínez, Jorge Rapp, Stefanie Reinold, Sarah Montesdeoca-Esponda, Daniel Montero, May Gómez. Trophic transfer of DDE, BP-3 and chlorpyrifos from microplastics to tissues in Dicentrarchus labrax. Science of The Total Environment 2023, 882 , 163295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163295
  91. Margherita Concato, Cristina Panti, Matteo Baini, Matteo Galli, Dario Giani, Maria Cristina Fossi. Detection of anthropogenic fibres in marine organisms: Knowledge gaps and methodological issues. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2023, 191 , 114949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.114949
  92. Tanja Kögel, Bonnie M. Hamilton, Maria E. Granberg, Jennifer Provencher, Sjúrður Hammer, Alessio Gomiero, Kerstin Magnusson, Amy L. Lusher. Current efforts on microplastic monitoring in Arctic fish and how to proceed. Arctic Science 2023, 9 (2) , 266-283. https://doi.org/10.1139/as-2021-0057
  93. Guilherme Malafaia. A commentary on the paper “identification of microplastics in human placenta using laser direct infrared spectroscopy”: Reflections on identification and typing of microplastics in human biological samples. Science of The Total Environment 2023, 875 , 162650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162650
  94. Paolo Pastorino, Serena Anselmi, Anna Zanoli, Giuseppe Esposito, Fabio Bondavalli, Alessandro Dondo, Alessandra Pucci, Elisabetta Pizzul, Caterina Faggio, Damià Barceló, Monia Renzi, Marino Prearo. The invasive red swamp crayfish (Procambarus clarkii) as a bioindicator of microplastic pollution: Insights from Lake Candia (northwestern Italy). Ecological Indicators 2023, 150 , 110200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110200
  95. Paolo Pastorino, Serena Anselmi, Giuseppe Esposito, Marco Bertoli, Elisabetta Pizzul, Damià Barceló, Antonia Concetta Elia, Alessandro Dondo, Marino Prearo, Monia Renzi. Microplastics in biotic and abiotic compartments of high-mountain lakes from Alps. Ecological Indicators 2023, 150 , 110215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110215
  96. Cheng Fang, Yunlong Luo, Ravi Naidu. Raman imaging for the analysis of silicone microplastics and nanoplastics released from a kitchen sealant. Frontiers in Chemistry 2023, 11 https://doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2023.1165523
  97. Sirui Huang, Ruitong Jiang, Nicholas J. Craig, Hua Deng, Wenhui He, Juan-Ying Li, Lei Su. Accumulation and re-distribution of microplastics via aquatic plants and macroalgae - A review of field studies. Marine Environmental Research 2023, 187 , 105951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2023.105951
  98. Laura Polt, Larissa Motyl, Elke Kerstin Fischer. Abundance and Distribution of Microplastics in Invertebrate and Fish Species and Sediment Samples along the German Wadden Sea Coastline. Animals 2023, 13 (10) , 1698. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13101698
  99. M. Antonio Todaro, Serena Anselmi, Tecla Bentivoglio, Carlo Pretti, Andrea Cavallo, Monia Renzi. Looking for Nano- and Microplastics in Meiofauna Using Advanced Methodologies. Environments 2023, 10 (5) , 81. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments10050081
  100. Ülgen Aytan, F. Başak Esensoy, Yasemen Şentürk, Olgaç Güven, Kaan Karaoğlu, Murat Erbay. Plastic occurrence in fish caught in the highly industrialized Gulf of İzmit (Eastern Sea of Marmara, Türkiye). Chemosphere 2023, 324 , 138317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.138317
Load more citations
  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Ingestion incidence and 95% confidence intervals recalculated from data provided in microplastic ingestion studies. Data are combined to obtain a “whole ocean” biota ingestion incidence value (○).

  • References

    ARTICLE SECTIONS
    Jump To

    This article references 88 other publications.

    1. 1
      GESAMP Sources, fate and effects of microplastics in the marine environment: part two of a global assessment; Kershaw, P. J., Rochman, C. M., eds.; IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/ UNEP/UNDP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection; Rep. Stud. GESAMP, 2016; Vol. 93, p 220.
    2. 2
      Wright, S. L.; Thompson, R. C.; Galloway, T. S. The physical impacts of microplastics on marine organisms: A review. Environ. Pollut. 2013, 178, 483492,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.02.031
    3. 3
      Browne, M. A.; Galloway, T.; Thompson, R. Microplastic—an emerging contaminant of potential concern?. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manage. 2007, 3 (4), 559561,  DOI: 10.1002/ieam.5630030412
    4. 4
      Chen, Q.; Reisser, J.; Cunsolo, S.; Kwadijk, C.; Kotterman, M.; Proietti, M.; Slat, B.; Ferrari, F. F.; Schwarz, A.; Levivier, A.; Yin, D.; Hollert, H.; Koelmans, A. A. Pollutants in Plastics within the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52 (2), 446456,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b04682
    5. 5
      Lusher, A. L.; McHugh, M.; Thompson, R. C. Occurrence of microplastics in the gastrointestinal tract of pelagic and demersal fish from the English Channel. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2013, 67 (1), 9499,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.11.028
    6. 6
      Foekema, E. M.; De Gruijter, C.; Mergia, M. T.; van Franeker, J. A.; Murk, A. J.; Koelmans, A. A. Plastic in North Sea Fish. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47 (15), 88188824,  DOI: 10.1021/es400931b
    7. 7
      Neves, D.; Sobral, P.; Ferreira, J. L.; Pereira, T. Ingestion of microplastics by commercial fish off the Portuguese coast. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 101 (1), 119126,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.11.008
    8. 8
      Mathalon, A.; Hill, P. Microplastic fibers in the intertidal ecosystem surrounding Halifax Harbor, Nova Scotia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2014, 81 (1), 6979,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.02.018
    9. 9
      Romeo, T.; Pietro, B.; Pedà, C.; Consoli, P.; Andaloro, F.; Fossi, M. C. First evidence of presence of plastic debris in stomach of large pelagic fish in the Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 95 (1), 358361,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.04.048
    10. 10
      Lusher, A. Microplastics in the Marine Environment: Distribution, Interactions and Effects. In Marine Anthropogenic Litter; Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., Klages, M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, 2015; pp 245307.
    11. 11
      Teuten, E. L.; Saquing, J. M.; Knappe, D. R. U.; Barlaz, M. A.; Jonsson, S.; Björn, A.; Rowland, S. J.; Thompson, R. C.; Galloway, T. S.; Yamashita, R.; Ochi, D.; Watanuki, Y.; Moore, C.; Viet, P. H.; Tana, T. S.; Prudente, M.; Boonyatumanond, R.; Zakaria, M. P.; Akkhavong, K.; Ogata, Y.; Hirai, H.; Iwasa, S.; Mizukawa, K.; Hagino, Y.; Imamura, A.; Saha, M.; Takada, H. Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the environment and to wildlife. Philos. Trans. R. Soc., B 2009, 364 (1526), 20272045,  DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0284
    12. 12
      Mato, Y.; Isobe, T.; Takada, H.; Kanehiro, H.; Ohtake, C.; Kaminuma, T. Plastic resin pellets as a transport medium for toxic chemicals in the marine environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2001, 35 (2), 318324,  DOI: 10.1021/es0010498
    13. 13
      Diepens, N. J.; Koelmans, A. A. Accumulation of plastic debris and associated contaminants in aquatic food webs. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 85108520,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b02515
    14. 14
      Cozar, A.; Echevarria, F.; Gonzalez-Gordillo, J. I.; Irigoien, X.; Ubeda, B.; Hernandez-Leon, S.; Palma, A. T.; Navarro, S.; Garcia-de-Lomas, J.; Ruiz, A.; Fernandez-de-Puelles, M. L.; Duarte, C. M. Plastic debris in the open ocean. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2014, 111 (28), 1023910244,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1314705111
    15. 15
      Rochman, C. M.; Browne, M. A.; Underwood, A. J.; van Franeker, J. A.; Thompson, R. C. T.; Amaral-Zettler, L. A. The ecological impacts of marine debris: unraveling the demonstrated evidence from what is perceived. Ecology 2016, 97 (2), 302312,  DOI: 10.1890/14-2070.1
    16. 16
      Besseling, E.; Foekema, E. M.; Van Franeker, J. A.; Leopold, M. F.; Kuhn, S.; Rebolledo, E. L. B.; Hesse, E.; Mielke, L.; Ijzer, J.; Kamminga, P.; Koelmans, A. A. Microplastic in a macro filter feeder: Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 95 (1), 248252,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.04.007
    17. 17
      Lusher, A. L.; Hernandez-Milian, G.; Berrow, S.; Rogan, E.; O’Connor, I. Incidence of marine debris in cetaceans stranded and bycaught in Ireland: Recent findings and a review of historical knowledge. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 232, 467476,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.09.070
    18. 18
      Herzke, D.; Anker-Nilssen, T.; Nøst, T. H.; Götsch, A.; Christensen-Dalsgaard, S.; Langset, M.; Fangel, K.; Koelmans, A. A. Negligible Impact of Ingested Microplastics on Tissue Concentrations of Persistent Organic Pollutants in Northern Fulmars off Coastal Norway. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50 (4), 19241933,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b04663
    19. 19
      Koelmans, A. A. Modeling the Role of Microplastics in Bioaccumulation of Organic Chemicals to Marine Aquatic Organisms. A Critical Review. In Marine Anthropogenic Litter; Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., Klages, M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, 2015; pp 309324.
    20. 20
      Koelmans, A. A.; Besseling, E.; Wegner, A.; Foekema, E. M. Plastic as a Carrier of POPs to Aquatic Organisms: A Model Analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47 (14), 78127820,  DOI: 10.1021/es401169n
    21. 21
      Setälä, O.; Fleming-Lehtinen, V.; Lehtiniemi, M. Ingestion and transfer of microplastics in the planktonic food web. Environ. Pollut. 2014, 185 (0), 7783,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.10.013
    22. 22
      Farrell, P.; Nelson, K. Trophic level transfer of microplastic: Mytilus edulis (L.) to Carcinus maenas (L.). Environ. Pollut. 2013, 177, 13,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.01.046
    23. 23
      Wright, S. L.; Kelly, F. J. Plastic and Human Health: A Micro Issue?. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51 (12), 66346647,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b00423
    24. 24
      Filella, M. Questions of size and numbers in environmental research on microplastics: methodological and conceptual aspects. Environmental Chemistry 2015, 12 (5), 527538,  DOI: 10.1071/EN15012
    25. 25
      Connors, K. A.; Dyer, S. D.; Belanger, S. E. Advancing the quality of environmental microplastic research. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2017, 36 (7), 16971703,  DOI: 10.1002/etc.3829
    26. 26
      Hanvey, J. S.; Lewis, P. J.; Lavers, J. L.; Crosbie, N. D.; Pozo, K.; Clarke, B. O. A review of analytical techniques for quantifying microplastics in sediments. Anal. Methods 2017, 9 (9), 13691383,  DOI: 10.1039/C6AY02707E
    27. 27
      Vandermeersch, G.; Van Cauwenberghe, L.; Janssen, C. R.; Marques, A.; Granby, K.; Fait, G.; Kotterman, M. J. J.; Diogène, J.; Bekaert, K.; Robbens, J.; Devriese, L. A critical view on microplastic quantification in aquatic organisms. Environ. Res. 2015, 143, 4655,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2015.07.016
    28. 28
      Wesch, C.; Bredimus, K.; Paulus, M.; Klein, R. Towards the suitable monitoring of ingestion of microplastics by marine biota: A review. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 218, 12001208,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.08.076
    29. 29
      Löder, M. G. J.; Gerdts, G. Methodology Used for the Detection and Identification of Microplastics - A Critical Appraisal. In Marine Anthropogenic Litter; Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., Klages, M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Berlin, 2015; pp 201227.
    30. 30
      Klimisch, H. J.; Andreae, M.; Tillmann, U. A Systematic Approach for Evaluating the Quality of Experimental Toxicological and Ecotoxicological Data. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 1997, 25 (1), 15,  DOI: 10.1006/rtph.1996.1076
    31. 31
      Kase, R.; Korkaric, M.; Werner, I.; Ågerstrand, M. Criteria for Reporting and Evaluating ecotoxicity Data (CRED): comparison and perception of the Klimisch and CRED methods for evaluating reliability and relevance of ecotoxicity studies. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2016, 28 (1), 7,  DOI: 10.1186/s12302-016-0073-x
    32. 32
      Koelmans, A. A.; Besseling, E.; Foekema, E.; Kooi, M.; Mintenig, S.; Ossendorp, B. C.; Redondo-Hasselerharm, P. E.; Verschoor, A.; van Wezel, A. P.; Scheffer, M. Risks of Plastic Debris: Unravelling Fact, Opinion, Perception, and Belief. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51 (20), 1151311519,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b02219
    33. 33
      Brown, L. D.; Cai, T. T.; DasGupta, A. Interval Estimation for a Binomial Proportion. Statistical Science 2001, 16 (2), 101117,  DOI: 10.1214/ss/1009213286
    34. 34
      Kooi, M.; Nes, E. H. v.; Scheffer, M.; Koelmans, A. A. Ups and Downs in the Ocean: Effects of Biofouling on Vertical Transport of Microplastics. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51 (14), 79637971,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b04702
    35. 35
      Gall, S. C.; Thompson, R. C. The impact of debris on marine life. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 92 (1), 170179,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.12.041
    36. 36
      Claessens, M.; De Meester, S.; Van Landuyt, L.; De Clerck, K.; Janssen, C. R. Occurrence and distribution of microplastics in marine sediments along the Belgian coast. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62 (10), 2199204,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.06.030
    37. 37
      Woodall, L. C.; Gwinnett, C.; Packer, M.; Thompson, R. C.; Robinson, L. F.; Paterson, G. L. J. Using a forensic science approach to minimize environmental contamination and to identify microfibres in marine sediments. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 95 (1), 4046,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.04.044
    38. 38
      Van Cauwenberghe, L.; Vanreusel, A.; Mees, J.; Janssen, C. R. Microplastic pollution in deep-sea sediments. Environ. Pollut. 2013, 182, 495499,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.08.013
    39. 39
      Setälä, O.; Norkko, J.; Lehtiniemi, M. Feeding type affects microplastic ingestion in a coastal invertebrate community. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 102 (1), 95101,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.11.053
    40. 40
      Redondo-Hasselerharm, P. E.; Falahudin, D.; Peeters, E. T. H. M.; Koelmans, A. A. Microplastic Effect Thresholds for Freshwater Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52 (4), 22782286,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b05367
    41. 41
      Davison, P.; Asch, R. G. Plastic ingestion by mesopelagic fishes in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre. Mar. Ecol.: Prog. Ser. 2011, 432, 173180,  DOI: 10.3354/meps09142
    42. 42
      OSPAR request on development of a common monitoring protocol for plastic particles in fish stomachs and selected shellfish on the basis of existing fish disease surveys. IICES Advice 2015, 1, 16.
    43. 43
      Cannon, S. M. E.; Lavers, J. L.; Figueiredo, B. Plastic ingestion by fish in the Southern Hemisphere: A baseline study and review of methods. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 107, 286291,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.03.057
    44. 44
      Jabeen, K.; Su, L.; Li, J.; Yang, D.; Tong, C.; Mu, J.; Shi, H. Microplastics and mesoplastics in fish from coastal and fresh waters of China. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 221, 141149,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.11.055
    45. 45
      MSFD (Technical Subgroup on Marine Litter). Guidance on Monitoring of Marine Litter in European Seas , 2013.
    46. 46
      Hermsen, E.; Pompe, R.; Besseling, E.; Koelmans, A. A. Detection of low numbers of microplastics in North Sea fish using strict quality assurance criteria. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 122 (1), 253258,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.06.051
    47. 47
      Bellas, J.; Martínez-Armental, J.; Martínez-Cámara, A.; Besada, V.; Martínez-Gómez, C. Ingestion of microplastics by demersal fish from the Spanish Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 109 (1), 5560,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.06.026
    48. 48
      Lusher, A. L.; O’Donnell, C.; Officer, R.; O’Connor, I. Microplastic interactions with North Atlantic mesopelagic fish. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2016, 73 (4), 12141225,  DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsv241
    49. 49
      Courtene-Jones, W.; Quinn, B.; Murphy, F.; Gary, S. F.; Narayanaswamy, B. E. Optimisation of enzymatic digestion and validation of specimen preservation methods for the analysis of ingested microplastics. Anal. Methods 2017, 9, 14371445,  DOI: 10.1039/C6AY02343F
    50. 50
      Desforges, J.-P. W.; Galbraith, M.; Ross, P. S. Ingestion of Microplastics by Zooplankton in the Northeast Pacific Ocean. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2015, 69 (3), 320330,  DOI: 10.1007/s00244-015-0172-5
    51. 51
      Murray, F.; Cowie, P. R. Plastic contamination in the decapod crustacean Nephrops norvegicus (Linnaeus, 1758). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62 (6), 12071217,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.03.032
    52. 52
      Boerger, C. M.; Lattin, G. L.; Moore, S. L.; Moore, C. J. Plastic ingestion by planktivorous fishes in the North Pacific Central Gyre. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2010, 60 (12), 22752278,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.08.007
    53. 53
      Karlsson, T. M.; Vethaak, A. D.; Almroth, B. C.; Ariese, F.; van Velzen, M.; Hassellöv, M.; Leslie, H. A. Screening for microplastics in sediment, water, marine invertebrates and fish: Method development and microplastic accumulation. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 122 (1), 403408,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.06.081
    54. 54
      Torre, M.; Digka, N.; Anastasopoulou, A.; Tsangaris, C.; Mytilineou, C. Anthropogenic microfibres pollution in marine biota. A new and simple methodology to minimize airborne contamination. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 113 (1), 5561,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.07.050
    55. 55
      Liboiron, M.; Liboiron, F.; Wells, E.; Richárd, N.; Zahara, A.; Mather, C.; Bradshaw, H.; Murichi, J. Low plastic ingestion rate in Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) from Newfoundland destined for human consumption collected through citizen science methods. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 113 (1), 428437,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.10.043
    56. 56
      Devriese, L. I.; van der Meulen, M. D.; Maes, T.; Bekaert, K.; Paul-Pont, I.; Frère, L.; Robbens, J.; Vethaak, A. D. Microplastic contamination in brown shrimp (Crangon crangon, Linnaeus 1758) from coastal waters of the Southern North Sea and Channel area. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 98 (1), 179187,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.06.051
    57. 57
      Wesch, C.; Elert, A. M.; Wörner, M.; Braun, U.; Klein, R.; Paulus, M. Assuring quality in microplastic monitoring: About the value of clean-air devices as essentials for verified data. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7 (1), 5424,  DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-05838-4
    58. 58
      Rummel, C. D.; Löder, M. G. J.; Fricke, N. F.; Lang, T.; Griebeler, E. M.; Janke, M.; Gerdts, G. Plastic ingestion by pelagic and demersal fish from the North Sea and Baltic Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 102 (1), 134141,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.11.043
    59. 59
      Davidson, K.; Dudas, S. E. Microplastic Ingestion by Wild and Cultured Manila Clams (Venerupis philippinarum) from Baynes Sound, British Columbia. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2016, 71 (2), 147156,  DOI: 10.1007/s00244-016-0286-4
    60. 60
      Van Cauwenberghe, L.; Janssen, C. R. Microplastics in bivalves cultured for human consumption. Environ. Pollut. 2014, 193, 6570,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2014.06.010
    61. 61
      Löder, M. G. J.; Imhof, H. K.; Ladehoff, M.; Löschel, L. A.; Lorenz, C.; Mintenig, S.; Piehl, S.; Primpke, S.; Schrank, I.; Laforsch, C.; Gerdts, G. Enzymatic purification of microplastics in environmental samples. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51 (24), 1428314292,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b03055
    62. 62
      Dehaut, A.; Cassone, A.-L.; Frère, L.; Hermabessiere, L.; Himber, C.; Rinnert, E.; Rivière, G.; Lambert, C.; Soudant, P.; Huvet, A.; Duflos, G.; Paul-Pont, I. Microplastics in seafood: Benchmark protocol for their extraction and characterization. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 215, 223233,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.05.018
    63. 63
      Munno, K.; Helm, P. A.; Jackson, D. A.; Rochman, C.; Sims, A. Impacts of temperature and selected chemical digestion methods on microplastic particles. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2018, 37 (1), 9198,  DOI: 10.1002/etc.3935
    64. 64
      Kühn, S.; van Werven, B.; van Oyen, A.; Meijboom, A.; Bravo Rebolledo, E. L.; van Franeker, J. A. The use of potassium hydroxide (KOH) solution as a suitable approach to isolate plastics ingested by marine organisms. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 115 (1–2), 8690,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.11.034
    65. 65
      Cole, M.; Webb, H.; Lindeque, P.; Fileman, E. S.; Halsband, C.; Galloway, T. S. Isolation of microplastics in biota-rich seawater samples and marine organisms. Sci. Rep. 2015, 4 (4528), 18,  DOI: 10.1038/srep04528
    66. 66
      Catarino, A. I.; Thompson, R.; Sanderson, W.; Henry, T. B. Development and optimization of a standard method for extraction of microplastics in mussels by enzyme digestion of soft tissues. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2017, 36 (4), 947951,  DOI: 10.1002/etc.3608
    67. 67
      Law, K. L.; Moret-Ferguson, S. E.; Goodwin, D. S.; Zettler, E. R.; De Force, E.; Kukulka, T.; Proskurowski, G. Distribution of Surface Plastic Debris in the Eastern Pacific Ocean from an 11-Year Data Set. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48 (9), 47324738,  DOI: 10.1021/es4053076
    68. 68
      Eriksen, M.; Mason, S.; Wilson, S.; Box, C.; Zellers, A.; Edwards, W.; Farley, H.; Amato, S. Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2013, 77 (1–2), 17782,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.10.007
    69. 69
      Imhof, H. K.; Laforsch, C.; Wiesheu, A. C.; Schmid, J.; Anger, P. M.; Niessner, R.; Ivleva, N. P. Pigments and plastic in limnetic ecosystems: A qualitative and quantitative study on microparticles of different size classes. Water Res. 2016, 98, 6474,  DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2016.03.015
    70. 70
      Peters, C. A.; Thomas, P. A.; Rieper, K. B.; Bratton, S. P. Foraging preferences influence microplastic ingestion by six marine fish species from the Texas Gulf Coast. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 124 (1), 8288,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.06.080
    71. 71
      Remy, F.; Collard, F.; Gilbert, B.; Compère, P.; Eppe, G.; Lepoint, G. When Microplastic Is Not Plastic: The Ingestion of Artificial Cellulose Fibers by Macrofauna Living in Seagrass Macrophytodetritus. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49 (18), 1115811166,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b02005
    72. 72
      Käppler, A.; Windrich, F.; Loder, M. G. J.; Malanin, M.; Fischer, D.; Labrenz, M.; Eichhorn, K. J.; Voit, B. Identification of microplastics by FTIR and Raman microscopy: a novel silicon filter substrate opens the important spectral range below 1300 cm(−1) for FTIR transmission measurements. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2015, 407 (22), 67916801,  DOI: 10.1007/s00216-015-8850-8
    73. 73
      Fries, E.; Dekiff, J. H.; Willmeyer, J.; Nuelle, M. T.; Ebert, M.; Remy, D. Identification of polymer types and additives in marine microplastic particles using pyrolysis-GC/MS and scanning electron microscopy. Environmental Science-Processes & Impacts 2013, 15 (10), 19491956,  DOI: 10.1039/c3em00214d
    74. 74
      Dümichen, E.; Eisentraut, P.; Bannick, C. G.; Barthel, A.-K.; Senz, R.; Braun, U. Fast identification of microplastics in complex environmental samples by a thermal degradation method. Chemosphere 2017, 174, 572584,  DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.02.010
    75. 75
      Fischer, M.; Scholz-Böttcher, B. M. Simultaneous Trace Identification and Quantification of Common Types of Microplastics in Environmental Samples by Pyrolysis-Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51 (9), 50525060,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b06362
    76. 76
      Löder, M. G. J.; Kuczera, M.; Mintenig, S.; Lorenz, C.; Gerdts, G. Focal plane array detector-based micro-Fourier-transform infrared imaging for the analysis of microplastics in environmental samples. Environmental Chemistry 2015, 12 (5), 563581,  DOI: 10.1071/EN14205
    77. 77
      Mintenig, S. M.; Bauerlein, P. S.; Koelmans, A. A.; Dekker, S. C.; van Wezel, A. P. Closing the gap between small and smaller: towards a framework to analyse nano- and microplastics in aqueous environmental samples. Environ. Sci.: Nano 2018, 5, 16401649,  DOI: 10.1039/C8EN00186C
    78. 78
      Tanaka, K.; Takada, H. Microplastic fragments and microbeads in digestive tracts of planktivorous fish from urban coastal waters. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 34351,  DOI: 10.1038/srep34351
    79. 79
      Wesch, C.; Barthel, A. K.; Braun, U.; Klein, R.; Paulus, M. No microplastics in benthic eelpout (Zoarces viviparus): An urgent need for spectroscopic analyses in microplastic detection. Environ. Res. 2016, 148, 3638,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2016.03.017
    80. 80
      Li, J.; Yang, D.; Li, L.; Jabeen, K.; Shi, H. Microplastics in commercial bivalves from China. Environ. Pollut. 2015, 207, 190195,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2015.09.018
    81. 81
      Murphy, F.; Russell, M.; Ewins, C.; Quinn, B. The uptake of macroplastic & microplastic by demersal & pelagic fish in the Northeast Atlantic around Scotland. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 122 (1), 353359,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.06.073
    82. 82
      Nadal, M. A.; Alomar, C.; Deudero, S. High levels of microplastic ingestion by the semipelagic fish bogue Boops boops (L.) around the Balearic Islands. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 214, 517523,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.04.054
    83. 83
      Bråte, I. L. N.; Eidsvoll, D. P.; Steindal, C. C.; Thomas, K. V. Plastic ingestion by Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) from the Norwegian coast. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 112 (1), 105110,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.08.034
    84. 84
      Anastasopoulou, A.; Mytilineou, C.; Smith, C. J.; Papadopoulou, K. N. Plastic debris ingested by deep-water fish of the Ionian Sea (Eastern Mediterranean). Deep Sea Res., Part I 2013, 74 (0), 1113,  DOI: 10.1016/j.dsr.2012.12.008
    85. 85
      Jantz, L. A.; Morishige, C. L.; Bruland, G. L.; Lepczyk, C. A. Ingestion of plastic marine debris by longnose lancetfish (Alepisaurus ferox) in the North Pacific Ocean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2013, 69 (1), 97104,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.01.019
    86. 86
      Vendel, A. L.; Bessa, F.; Alves, V. E. N.; Amorim, A. L. A.; Patrício, J.; Palma, A. R. T. Widespread microplastic ingestion by fish assemblages in tropical estuaries subjected to anthropogenic pressures. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 117 (1), 448455,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.01.081
    87. 87
      Wójcik-Fudalewska, D.; Normant-Saremba, M.; Anastácio, P. Occurrence of plastic debris in the stomach of the invasive crab Eriocheir sinensis. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 113 (1), 306311,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.09.059
    88. 88
      Miranda, D. d. A.; de Carvalho-Souza, G. F. Are we eating plastic-ingesting fish?. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 103 (1), 109114,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.12.035
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information

    ARTICLE SECTIONS
    Jump To

    The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b01611.

    • Explanation and definition of scores and scoring of individual papers (PDF)


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

You’ve supercharged your research process with ACS and Mendeley!

STEP 1:
Click to create an ACS ID

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

MENDELEY PAIRING EXPIRED
Your Mendeley pairing has expired. Please reconnect