Amelia et al. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40645-020-00405-4(2021) 8:12

Progress in Earth andPlanetary Science

REVIEW

Open AccessMarine microplastics as vectors of major
ocean pollutants and its hazards to themarine ecosystem and humans
Tan Suet May Amelia1, Wan Mohd Afiq Wan Mohd Khalik1,2, Meng Chuan Ong1,3, Yi Ta Shao4,5*,
Hui-Juan Pan6,7* and Kesaven Bhubalan1,2,3,8,9*

Abstract
Microplastic pollutes water, land, air, and groundwater environments not only visually but also ecologically forplants, animals, and humans. Microplastic has been reported to act as vectors by sorbing pollutants andcontributing to the bioaccumulation of pollutants, particularly in marine ecosystems, organisms, and subsequently
food webs. The inevitable exposure of microplastic to humans emphasises the need to review the potential effects,
exposure pathways, and toxicity of microplastic toward human health. Therefore, this review was aimed to reveal
the risks of pollutant sorption and bioaccumulation by microplastic toward humans, as well as the dominant typesof pollutants sorbed by microplastic, and the types of pollutants that are bioaccumulated by microplastic in theliving organisms of the marine ecosystem. The possible factors influencing the sorption and bioaccumulation ofpollutants by microplastic in marine ecosystems were also reviewed. The review also revealed the prevailing typesof microplastic, abundance of microplastic, and geographical distribution of microplastic in the aquatic environment
globally. The literature review revealed that microplastic characteristics, chemical interactions, and water properties
played a role in the sorption of pollutants by microplastic. The evidence of microplastic posing a direct medical
threat to humans is still lacking albeit substantial literature has reported the health hazards of microplasticassociated monomers, additives, and pollutants. This review recommends future research on the existingknowledge gaps in microplastic research, which include the toxicity of microplastic, particularly to humans, as wellas the factors influencing the sorption and bioaccumulation of pollutants by microplastic.
Keywords: Adsorption, Bioaccumulation, Contaminant, Microplastic, Pollutant, Vector

1 Introduction
The plastic industry began in the 1920s and grew rapidly
since the 1940s. In 2014, the global plastic output has
been 20 times that of 1964 (Neufeld et al. 2016).
Globally, the annual production of 330 and 360 million
metric tons was recorded for 2016 and 2018, respectively* Correspondence: itshao@mail.ntou.edu.tw; hjpan_siraya@mail.ntou.edu.tw;kesaven@umt.edu.my
4
Institute of Marine Biology, National Taiwan Ocean University, Keelung
20224, Taiwan
6
Institute of Earth Sciences, College of Ocean Science and Resource, National
Taiwan Ocean University, Keelung 20224, Taiwan
1
Faculty of Science and Marine Environment, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu,
21030 Kuala Nerus, Terengganu, Malaysia
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article(PlasticsEurope 2017; PlasticsEurope 2019). The annual
plastic production is still increasing despite the increased
awareness of plastic pollution and efforts to mitigate its
pollution. An estimated 275 million metric tons of landbased plastic waste from 192 coastal countries resulted
in 4.8 to 12.7 million metric tons entering the ocean in2010 (Jambeck et al. 2015). Moreover, the degradationand the fragmentation of marine plastic litter lead to theformation of hazardous secondary microplastic in theocean. In terms of microplastic waste, 60 to 99 million
metric tons was generated in 2015 (Lebreton andAndrady 2019). In terms of stray waste alone, roughly
six and three million metric tons of macroplastic and© The Author(s). 2021 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate ifchanges were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commonslicence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commonslicence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain
permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

(2021) 8:12

Page 2 of 26

microplastic, respectively, were lost to the environment
in 2015 (Ryberg et al. 2019). The microplastic pollution
reported in the literature chiefly refers to the visible orobservable presence of microplastic in the food sources,
the above-significant levels of microplastic concentrations in the ecosystems, and the risks of microplastic tothe environment and public health (Abbasi et al. 2018;
Akarsu et al. 2020; Alimi et al. 2018). The presence ofmost manmade substances in the environment, thoughinevitable, requires critical attention when their overpresence presents as pollution, with threats and negative
implications. In order to challenge the problem of
microplastic pollution, it is imperative to recognise thesource, transportation, degradation, sink, and consequences of microplastic pollution.
Microplastic is a ubiquitous occurrence in terrestrial,
freshwater, and marine environments (Yu et al. 2019a).
The sources of microplastic include wastewater treatment plants, landfills, irrigation, agricultural fields, industrial effluent, and domestic runoff (Conley et al.
2019; Corradini et al. 2019; Gündoğdu et al. 2018; Heet al. 2019; Li et al. 2018a; Rochman 2018; Steinmetz
et al. 2016). Microplastic is released from atmosphericdeposition, land-based sources, fertilisers, artificial turf,
road and air transportation, textiles, coastal and tourism
activities, commercial fishing, marine vessels, aquaculture, and oil rigs (Belzagui et al. 2019; Gieré et al. 2018;
Kole et al. 2017; Liu et al. 2019b; Li et al. 2018a; Weithmann et al. 2018). Subsequently, microplastic accumulates in the deep sea, pristine polar regions, ice sheet,living organisms, and contaminants such as polycyclicaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), heavy metals, and antibiotics (Obbard 2018; Woodall et al. 2014; Yu et al. 2018).
Microplastic waste is further fragmentised into nanoplastic and then accumulatively ingested by living organisms, affecting their feeding, digestion, excretion, andreproduction processes.
To curb microplastic pollution, it is important to reachan understanding of not only the source of microplastic
but also its transportation, degradation, and the possible
solutions of microplastic pollution. The complex transportation and distribution processes of microplastic include the ocean dynamics (i.e. surface drifting, verticalmixing, beaching, settling, and entrainment) and thephysical characteristics of microplastic (i.e. size, shape,and density) (Enders et al. 2015; Guo et al. 2020; Kanhai
et al. 2018; Li et al. 2020; Woodall et al. 2014). Ocean
dynamics have also caused large areas of surface convergence, naturally accumulating up to 580,000 plastic
pieces per square kilometre, such as the garbage patches
near the Kuroshio Extension and in the western North
Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea (Howell et al. 2012;
Law et al. 2010; Maximenko et al. 2012; Yamashita andTanimura 2007). Organic aggregates or microorganisms,

such as diatoms, can rapidly accumulate on the surfaceof plastic debris and form a biofilm, which then increases the density and causes the sinking of the floatingor suspended low-density microplastic, hence redistributing the latter (Galgani et al. 2015; Zhang 2017; Zhao
et al. 2018; Zhao et al. 2017).
Furthermore, marine microplastic can be ingested andintroduced to the biological systems of a wide range oforganisms from herbivores and secondary consumers to
the predators of higher trophic levels, such as microorganisms, planktons, benthic invertebrates, (Naidu et al.
2018), fish (Savoca et al. 2019), deep ocean biota (Courtene-Jones et al. 2017), and larger mammals (Barboza
et al. 2018a; Besseling et al. 2015; Wang et al. 2020b),
causing neurotoxicity and genotoxicity, as well as reduced feeding, filtration, survival, and reproductive abilities (Zhang et al. 2019a). These effects decrease thequantity and quality of the food supply to humans andother aquatic organisms (Wong et al. 2020). Moreover,microorganisms including pathogens were discovered to
be associated with microplastic (Brandon et al. 2018;
Syranidou et al. 2017). Among the bacteria groups detected in microplastic were Bacillus sp. Paenibacillus sp.,Actinobacteria, and Firmicutes (Lwanga et al. 2018; Parkand Kim 2019). Although microplastic can persist in theenvironment and resist degradation, some microplasticassociated bacteria can degrade microplastic (Alimi et al.
2018; Kim et al. 2017b; Sen and Raut 2015; Yuan et al.
2020). Different bacteria consortia have different microplastic degradation abilities depending on the types ofbacteria and enzymes (Tsiota et al. 2018). Reports havealso shown that bacteria not exclusively associated withplastic have been colonising microplastic, which included the families of Rhodobacteraceae, Hyphomonadaceae, and Sphingomonadaceae (Mata et al. 2017; Mouraet al. 2018; Oberbeckmann et al. 2018).
The use of microplastic-degrading microbes can enhance the biodegradation of marine microplastic alreadysubjected to weathering and external physicochemicalfactors (Oberbeckmann and Labrenz 2020; Qi et al.
2017). Although microplastic is difficult to biodegrade, it
offers support for microbial colonisation and growth(Rujnic-Sokele and Pilipovic 2017). Pores and irregularities that were observed on the surface of microplastic,
such as polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polystyrene (PS), and polylactic
acid (PLA), showed adhesion, colonisation, and damage
by the associated bacterial and fungal strains, for example Aspergillus flavus (Auta et al. 2018; Kim et al.
2017a; Mohan et al. 2016; Paco et al. 2017; Devi et al.
2015; Uscategui et al. 2016; Yoshida et al. 2016). Additionally, worms have been reported to degrade plastics(Yang et al. 2015b). Although microplastic can be biodegraded gradually, ageing primary or secondary

Amelia et al. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science(2021) 8:12

Page 3 of 26

microplastic is constantly structurally altered or fragmented through biological, mechanical, or chemical degradation in the environment into nanoplastic, whichfurther increases its bioavailability to living organisms(Hernandez et al. 2017; Liu et al. 2019a; Wang et al.
2019a). Furthermore, microplastic is a vector of harmful
pollutants such as persistent organic pollutants (POP)and heavy metals, capable of transporting contaminants
to the ecosystem via the food chain (Kwon et al. 2017;
Wang et al. 2020a; Zhang et al. 2020a). Microplastic canhence increase the bioavailability of pollutants to ecosystems and organisms through sorption and bioaccumulation (Guzzetti et al. 2018; Horton et al. 2017).
The strategies and solutions to mitigate microplastic
pollution include source control, remediation, clean up,
regional involvement, and research (Agamuthu et al.
2019; Ma et al. 2020b; Wu et al. 2017). For example, theEuropean Union has banned primary microplastic anddisposable plastics and encourages the controlled releaseof marine litter. The United Nations has proposed individual measures that can help to lighten microplastic
pollution, such as recycling and consumption control(Barceló and Picó 2020). Non-governmental organisations and international and national authorities, such as
Surfider Foundation Europe and United Nations Environment Program Mediterranean Action Plan, were also
involved in the practice or implementation of circular
economy systems, and coastal and marine debris management (Agamuthu et al. 2019; Camins et al. 2020).
Other efforts to alleviate microplastic pollution also include research on the application of water treatment systems and microbial degradation or biosynthesis ofplastic-like material (Amelia et al. 2019; Bolto and Xie
2019; Hu et al. 2019; Ngo et al. 2019; Raju et al. 2018;
Sun et al. 2019; Talvitie et al. 2017; Zhang et al. 2020a;
Zhang and Chen 2020). Additionally, the fundamental
research on plastic cannot be ignored as an in-depth understanding of microplastic characterisation based on its
polymer type and morphology is needed to identify themost to the least environmentally harmful types of
microplastic.
Overall, systematic management of and innovative research on reducing plastic waste materials at the source,
removing microplastic in wastewater treatment facilities
or increasing the use of bioplastic or easily biodegradable
plastic, is needed to solve the issue of microplastic contamination. However, the understanding of the severity
and impact of microplastic is important to mitigate
microplastic pollution. With the increasing quantity ofliterature concerning the abundance and ubiquitous distribution of microplastic globally, research attention has
been shifted toward the direct and indirect consequencesof microplastic. Therefore, this review mainly focused on
the possible factors that influenced pollutant sorption or

bioaccumulation by microplastic, the health risks of
microplastic to humans and other living organisms ofthe marine ecosystem, and the abundance and distribution of microplastic.

Amelia et al. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science

2 Review
2.1 Types, abundance, and distribution of microplastic

Microplastic can be categorised on the basis of its original manufactured size, morphology, density, and material. Microplastic is defined as a plastic material withan average size of less than 5 mm. The fragmentation oflarger plastic in the environment is caused by chemical(e.g. photolysis, hydrolysis, and thermal), mechanical(e.g. abrasion), and biological (e.g. bacteria and fungi)
degradation (Andrady 2011; Ivleva et al. 2017). The classification of microplastic is subjected to two categories,
namely primary microplastic (i.e. microplastic producedin micro-sized particles such as microbeads) and secondary microplastic (i.e. microplastic from the breakdown oflarger plastic materials) (Duis and Coors 2016). Primary
microplastic is originally manufactured as microplastic
that is usually applied in cosmeceutical products, drug
vectors, and engineering or industrial applications (Autaet al. 2017). In contrast, secondary microplastic is originally manufactured as relatively large plastic that is degraded and fragmented into smaller pieces by complex
weathering interactions (Rocha-Santos and Duarte2015). Based on the morphotypes or types of morphologies, microplastic consists of fibres, fragments, films, pellets, beads, and Styrofoam. The abundance of
microplastic in a water column depends on its density,wherein low-density microplastic such as PE and PP is
buoyant in the water, while high-density microplastic
tends to sink in the sediment (Sul and Costa 2014).
2.2 Fibres

Numerous research work has generally revealed that theheterogeneity of microplastic abundance has beenmostly influenced by human activities such as wastewater discharge, industrial discharge, mariculture, andsettlement. For example, research work in the Yangtze
estuary and coastal area of the East China Sea revealed
fibre as the dominant morphotype collected up to 79.1%
and 83.2%, respectively (Zhao et al. 2014). The influxfrom the river to the sea is believed to play a significant
role in introducing microplastic to the estuary andcoastal areas. Anthropogenic activities such as landbased and fisheries activities trigger the abundance of
microplastic.
For Xiangshan Bay, China, the source of microplastic
pollution is dominated by the presence of mariculture
activities. Chen et al. (2018) revealed more than 50% of
microplastic of the fibre type derived from mariculture
activities. Seawater samples were collected with plankton(2021) 8:12

Page 4 of 26

net tows involving nine sites. Microplastic derived from
PE, PP, and PS was detected during the period of study.
At another mariculture site in Maowei Sea, China, asimilar pattern of a majority of fibre made from the
PET, PP, and PE polymers was observed (Zhu et al.
2019). The riverine influx nearby thus enhanced theabundance of microplastic in the Maowei Sea.
A comprehensive study was carried out by Dai et al.
(2018) to understand the impact of human intervention
on microplastic pollution in Bohai Sea waters. In all,
75% of the microplastic collected by the researchers fell
under the morphotype of fibre. The fraction of fibres inthe surface layer was lower than that in the deeper levelsof the water column. Sample collection using a stainlesssteel bucket was believed to have easily trapped fibre ascompared to other methods such as those using mantra
nets or neustonic trawls. In the surface water of theNorth Yellow Sea, film and fibre were the dominantmorphotypes reported by Zhu et al. (2018b). Microplastic abundance was high with an average value of 545 ±282 items/m3. PE was identified as a major contributorof microplastic composition in surface water. The Chinese coastal current and the Korean coastal current were
speculated to introduce floating microplastic into theNorth Yellow Sea. Domestic sewage and fishing activities
were the main sources of plastic pollution in this area.
Microplastic abundance and distribution research has
been focused on regions that are highly influenced byhuman activities, such as the closed ecosystem of Jiaozhou Bay, China. The morphotype of black or blue fibreis the main characteristic of microplastic found in thecollected samples. Polyamide (PA), polyvinyl acetate(PVA), PP, PE, and PET were the main groups of polymers found in this work. The Haibo river estuary was
discovered to have strong riverine input to enhancemicroplastic flux into the bay. In addition, residual
current and sediment mobility were other factors with asignificant impact on the microplastic distribution andcomposition (Zheng et al. 2019).
Microplastic pollution was also observed in the west
region of Asia. For example, a low abundance of microplastic was recorded in Qatar marine waters with anaverage concentration of 0.71 particle/m3. The morphotypes of fibre and granule were spotted as the dominant
types in the study (Castillo et al. 2016). The source ofpollution was speculated to be derived from human anthropogenic activities, including oil-rig installation andship operations. In the Arabic region, Aliabad et al.
(2019) conducted a study on the microplastic abundancein Chabahar Bay, Oman, involving surface water fromthe seven selected stations. The primary colours of the
microplastics collected were white, blue, and red. A low
concentration of microplastic abundance was recordedin this area with fibre as the dominant morphotype,made up of secondary microplastic. More than 60% of
the analysed samples were detected to be PE and PP.
In the region of the Mediterranean Sea, the first study
on microplastic abundance was reported by Kazour et al.
(2019), which focused on a Lebanese coastal area,
namely the Levantine Basin. This area was recognised asa polluted area with a high abundance of microplastic.
More than 50% of the microplastics detected in thewater samples were fibres, and PE was the most abundant material. On the other side of the MediterraneanSea, Akarsu et al. (2020) explicated the abundance of
microplastic in Mersin Bay, Turkey. The study area wasreported to receive high discharge from wastewater
treatment plants. Therefore, the fibre material type was
expected to contribute a large portion of microplastic.
American and European continents also recorded varied microplastic abundance in the water column. For example, Sutton et al. (2016) found the occurrence of
microplastic in San Francisco Bay, CA, USA. Fibres were
dominant in the sample containing wastewater discharge. Furthermore, average microplastic abundance(4.5 particles/m3) was found in Tampa Bay, Florida, inthe water and sediment samples. In all, 88% of the
microplastic detected in the water samples was fibres,
followed by fragments and flakes (McEachern et al.
2019). The source of microplastic introduced into theaquatic ecosystem was believed to be wastewater treatment discharge. High microplastic abundance was foundin the vicinity of the industrial area.
Studies on microplastic abundance in Swedish marine
waters included Skagerrak/Kattegat, the Baltic Sea, andGulf of Bothnia. Two different approaches, namely
manta trawl and in situ pump filtering, were used to collect the microplastic from the seawater. The pump filtering
methoddetectedahighermicroplastic
concentration, 0.10 particles/m3, than the manta trawl
method, 0.04 particles/m3. Fibre was the most frequently
found morphotype in the water samples consisting of PE
and PP (Schönlau et al. 2020). This study only took into
account fibres longer than 1 mm, and the transparent
ones were excluded. Most of the synthetic fibres foundin all the samples were black or blue, which might suggest ropes as a possible source of these fibres, as thesecolours are very popular for ropes and fishing gear in
the studied area.
Microplastic was also detected in South Africa marine
waters. Nel and Froneman (2015) reported a quantitative
microplastic concentration in the water column ranging
from 257 to 1215 particles/m3 and the dominant proportion of the morphotype of fibre. The main source wasbelieved to be land-based sewage effluent. Overall, themicroplastic typically found to pollute the environment
was generally of the morphotype of fibre or fragment(Fig. 1), PE, or PP material, and contributed byAmelia et al. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science

Amelia et al. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science(2021) 8:12

Page 5 of 26

Fig. 1 Examples of microplastic morphotypes found in water samples. a Blue fragment, b transparent fibre, c black fibre, and d blue fibre

anthropogenic, urban, fishery, or marine activities. The
dominant colours were blue and black. Fibres were either tangled or untangled, as well as straight or curved.
In the Oceania region, low microplastic abundance inthe water, sediment, and fish samples was recorded in
the coastal area of Suva, Republic of Fiji (Ferreira et al.
2020). The microplastic in the seawater samples was obtained using planktonic circular tows. The microplastic
in the water samples of Laucala Bay, Suva Harbour, andvanua Navakavu was less than 0.24 item/m3. MPs werecategorised as fibres (60.2% ± 6.9%) and fragments(26.9% ± 3.5%), whereas the lowest percentage wasfound to be films (9.4% ± 2.0%) and microbeads (3.5% ±1.7%). The microplastic material analysis revealed 15
polymer types, with PE, PP, latex, and nylon as the major
contributors. Interestingly, the source appointment of
microplastic pollution was believed to be derived fromanthropogenic activities despite the marine protected
area, vanua Navakavu, being the most affected area.
2.3 Fragments

An analysis of Bohai Sea waters revealed that lowdensity polymers, such as PP, PE, and PS, were commonly found from all the 11 stations, where manta net
was towed horizontally at the surface for 15 min at approximately 1.5 to 2.0 knots for each transect (Table 1).
The most abundant morphotype was fragment in thiswork, which accounted for 46% of the total plastic collected. The source of microplastic was linked to fishingactivities and marine farming in the Bohai Sea (Zhang
et al. 2017).
The first observation in the Yellow Sea revealed a low
abundance of microplastic dominated with the morphotype of fragment by 42%. The main polymers identified
using micro-Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy(micro-FTIR) were PP and PE, accounting for 55.93%
and 32.20% of the total microplastic, respectively. Highconcentrations were observed close to coastal cities, thus
indicating that the Yellow Sea coastal current played asignificant role in the microplastic distribution (Sunet al. 2018).
The heterogeneity of microplastic was also found in
Malaysian marine waters. Research work by Khalik et al.
(2018) explicated two geological regions with different
human activities, which exhibited a contradicting patternof microplastic abundance. The first region located in
Kuantan, Malaysia, is a port, while the second location
situated in Kuala Nerus, Terengganu, is a non-urban
area. Kuala Nerus focused on commercial fishing andtourism, while Kuantan port is one of the major multicargo ports in Malaysia. Kuala Nerus had higher microplastic abundance, 0.13–0.69 pieces/L, than Kuantan
port with 0.14–0.15 pieces/L. The uniform microplastic
abundance was believed to be caused by a closed system,

Amelia et al. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science(2021) 8:12

Page 6 of 26

Table 1 Heterogeneity of MPs abundances in different region worldwide
RegionLocation

MPs concentration range

Polymer

Reference

Asian

Yangtze Estuary, China

500–10,200 n/m3

Not Available

Zhao et al. (2014)

Yellow Sea, China

ND–0.81 item/m3

PP, PESun et al. (2018)

America

EuropeAfrica3

Jiaozhou Bay, China

20–120 item/m

PP, PE, PET

Zheng et al. (2019)

Bohai Sea, China

0.01–1.5 particle/m3

PE, PP, PS, PET

Zhang et al. (2017)

Xiangshan Bay, China

4.6–20.1 item/m3

PE, PP, PS

Chen et al. (2018)

Qatar marine waters

0–3 item/m3

PE, PP, PS, PA, PMMA

Castillo et al. (2016)

3

Chabahar Bay, Oman

0.07–1.14 particle/mLevantine Basin, Lebanon

0.17–0.62 item/m3

Mersin Bay, Turkey
North Coast of Surabaya, Indonesia
Kuala Nerus and Kuantan Port, Malaysia

0.13–0.69 pcs/L

PES, PE, PP, PS, PA, PVC

Khalik et al. (2018)

Southern Sri Lanka

0–29 item/m3

PE, PP, PS and Mix PE+PP

Koongolla et al. (2018)

San Francisco Bay, USA

15,000–2,000,000 particle/km2

Not available

Sutton et al. (2016)

Tampa Bay, USA

1.2–18.1 particles/m3

Not available

McEachern et al. (2019)

PE, PP, PS, PET, PVA

Aliabad et al. (2019)

PE, PP, PS, PA, PET, PUR, PVC

Kazour et al. (2019)

0.2–5.1 pcs/L

PE, PP, PS

Akarsu et al. (2020)

0.38–0.61 N/L

PS, PE, PP, PU, PET, PB, PES

Cordova et al. (2019)3

Sweden marine waters

0–70.3 item/m

PE, PP

Schönlau et al. (2020)

Tuscan coastal waters, Italy

0.16–0.27 item/m3

PE, PP, EVA, SBR

Baini et al. (2018)

PE, PP

Rose and Webber (2019)

Not available

Nel and Froneman (2015)

3

King Harbour, Jamaica

0–5.73 particle/mSouth Africa marine waters

257–1215 particle/m3

such as a port, that limited the intrusion of plastic pollutants from the open sea. Six polymers were identified
from both the locations, namely PET, PS, PA, PVC, PP,
and PE.
Saliu et al. (2018) proved the occurrence of microplastic in Faafu Atoll, Maldives. Surface seawater was takenusing neuston net involving 12 locations. This area had
low population density and influx from tourism activities. However, the average microplastic abundance in
Faafu Atoll waters was 0.32 ± 0.15 particles/m3. Microplastics of the fragment morphotype found in a highfraction contributed up to 52% of the total particles in
the analyses.
In addition, Savoca et al. (2019) discussed the occurrence of microplastic in Tyrrhenian waters, the Mediterranean Sea. Water samples were taken using a Bongonet with a diameter of 60 cm. The microplastic found in
the seawater was dominated by the fragment type andoriginated from polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and lowdensity polyethylene (LDPE) materials. The blue colourof the plastic fragments was the most dominant colour,
reaching 56.25%. In South Asia, the abundance of microplastic varied between counties. A preliminary work carried out in Southern Sri Lanka by Koongolla et al. (2018)
revealed that 70% of the collected water samples contained microplastic. The morphotype of fragment was
dominant, and the microplastic composition was largely
contributed by PE and PP. Countries with tourismdriven economies, such as the Maldives, also experienced microplastic pollution in the water column.

In Spanish marine waters, Ruiz-Orejón et al. (2018) reported the occurrence of microplastic in the coastal waters of the Balearic Islands. Water samples were takenusing a mantra trawl net. More than 90% of the plastic
materials collected were identified as the morphotype offragment with a dominant size range of 0.5 to 1.3 mm.
Plastic with a micro size showed a stronger prevalence
than that with the meso and macro sizes. A high densityof microplastic was recorded in the water column, close
to the coastal line, particularly in the first 10 km. Italianmarine waters also experienced microplastic pollution asreported by Baini et al. (2018) in the Tuscan coastal waters. Surface samples were collected using a manta trawl,
involving four transects located along the Tuscan coast.
The average microplastic abundance was low, 0.26 item/
m3, with PE and PP identified as the main source of
microplastic in this area. Fragments were the mostprevalent type (62%) found in the water samples,
followed by filaments (29%); the highest abundance wasof particles of the size of < 1 mm (52%).
For the African region, microplastic abundance wasalso reported at different locations. For example, microplastic abundance was studied in King Harbour, Jamaica.
Samples were taken using a mantra trawl net. The
microplastic concentrations varied from 0 to 5.73 particles/m3. The morphotype of fragment was the most frequently found from the collected samples with sizes
ranging from 1 to 2.5 mm. Microplastics have also beencharacterised by a wide variety of colours, most of which
are transparent, accounting for 35%. The FTIR analysis

(2021) 8:12

Page 7 of 26

indicated the PE and PP composition for the morphotype of fragment (Rose and Webber 2019).
Saeed et al. (2020) conducted the first survey to understand the occurrence of microplastic in Kuwait marine
waters. Their findings revealed lower microplastic abundance in the water samples than the other matrices suchas sediment and fish. Neuston nets were used to trap the
microplastics from the seawater samples. In all, 37
microplastics were found in only 15 stations out of the
44 sampling stations, where each trawl was approximately 1 km. The PP and PE polymers were identified
using Raman spectroscopy. Six of the microplastics were
described as the fragment morphotype, while theremaining were labelled as the filament morphotype.

Recently, in the field of microplastic, the terms ‘absorb’
and ‘sorb’ have been used in addition to the more commonly used ‘adsorb’ to distinctly mean adsorption, absorption, both adsorption and absorption, or either oneof the former two situations (Huffer et al. 2018; Katsnelson 2015; Munier and Bendell 2018; Xia et al. 2020). According to Dictionary.com and Oxford University Press,‘sorb’ is defined as ‘to gather on a surface either by absorption, or adsorption, or a combination of the twoprocesses’ (“Sorb” 2020). The terms ‘adsorb’ and ‘absorb’
are defined as ‘hold molecules as a thin film on the outside surface or on internal surfaces within the material’and ‘take in or soak up substance by chemical or physical action’, respectively (“Adsorb” 2020; “Absorb” 2020).
In the recent publications in the microplastic field, ‘adsorb’ and ‘absorb’ are referred to as ‘sorbed onto the surface of microplastic’ and ‘sorbed into the bulk phase of
microplastic’, respectively (Endo et al. 2008; Huffer et al.
2018; Katsnelson 2015). The distinction of surface adsorption and bulk absorption could shed new insights
behind the mechanism of pollutant sorption by microplastics, the behaviour of microplastic–pollutant complexes, or the complete vector capacity of multiple
microplastic types (Huffer et al. 2018; Katsnelson 2015).
For example, certain substances such as minerals andrigid carbonaceous geosorbents (charcoal and soot) tend
to adsorb compounds, whereas organic contaminants
tend to absorb into organic matter (Endo et al. 2008).
Although the biological or mechanical degradation of
microplastic can lead to its fragmentation, increased surface area, enhanced bioavailability, and subsequently, its
sorption of pollutants, other chemical degradation andultraviolet (UV) light can also change the functionalgroups and other chemical properties of microplastic,
and hence, more directly aggravate the sorption of pollutants by microplastic (Göpferich 1995; Hernandez
et al. 2017; Horton et al. 2016; Jun et al. 2014; Liu et al.
2019a; Ter et al. 2016; Wang et al. 2019a). Microplastic
can sorb environmental contaminants that includehydrophobic organic pollutants (i.e. PAH, polychlorinated biphenyl [PCB]), hydrophilic organic pollutants(i.e. perfluoroalkyl acids [PFAA]), drugs, and metals(Table 2). The factors known to affect the pollutant
sorption capacity of microplastic are the colour, density,age, and chemical properties of the microplastic, type ofpollutant, biofilm presence, and environmental conditions such as dissolved organic matter, pH, and salinity(Fisner et al. 2017; Frias et al. 2013; Fries and Zarfl 2012;
Wang et al. 2015).

Amelia et al. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science

2.4 Other types

In the South China Sea region, researchers reported
microplastic abundance in the water samples of Nansha
Island, China. The microplastic concentration analysedfrom 15 water samples was high at 1733 item/m3.
Microbead was reported to be the dominant morphotype
and accounted for 76.5% of all the detected microplastic(Nie et al. 2019). However, in Hong Kong marine waters,
Tsang et al. (2017) found a relatively low density of
microplastic, such as PP and PE. The morphotype of pellet was identified as the main fraction of the microplastic, accounting for 96.8%. Discharge from a nearby river,
Pearl River or untreated sewage, storm runoff, and otherland-based activities were believed to contribute as thesources of the plastic pollution.
In Southeast Asia, a similar trend was reported bymany researchers, for example, the microplastic abundance in the north coast of Surabaya. Microplastic concentrations ranged from 0.38 to 0.61 item/L, in threeselected areas namely the Lamong Bay, Kenjeran Beach,and Wonorejo coastal area. A high contribution was derived from the close proximity to human settlements
and shipping activities. The foam type was reported tobe the dominant morphotype, which accounted for
58.4% of all the detected microplastic. Seven polymers
were identified from the studied location, and polystyrene was the most frequently detected in the samples(Cordova et al. 2019).
2.5 Pollutant sorption of microplastic and its factors

With the global severity of microplastic pollution, atleast 80 countries have publications about microplastic
sorbing pollutants, among which the major countries are
China, the USA, the UK, Italy, and South Korea (Yuet al. 2019a). Research on microplastic sorption has been
increasing as microplastic is gaining attention as a vector
or carrier of harmful contaminants, such as POP andheavy metals (Brennecke et al. 2016; Kwon et al. 2017).

2.6 Physical properties of microplastic as a factor

The physical and chemical properties of microplastic
have been proven to affect its pollutant sorption capacity(Fisner et al. 2017; Fries and Zarfl 2012; Huffer et al.

Amelia et al. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science(2021) 8:12

Page 8 of 26

Table 2 Types of pollutants carried by different types of microplastics
Microplastic

Pollutant

PA

Benzene derivative

Rehse et al. (2018)

PBAT

Heavy metals

Kedzierski et al. (2018)

PE

Lubrication oil

Haghi and Banaee (2017)

PAH

Oliveira et al. (2013)

Paraquat

Rochman et al. (2013b)

PBDE

Llorca et al. (2018)

PET
PP

PS

PVC

Reference

PCB

Wang et al. (2015)

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

Fisner et al. (2017)

PFOSA

Zhan et al. (2016)

PPCP

Hu et al. (2017)

Triclosan

Frydkjær et al. (2017)

Heavy metals

Rochman et al. (2013a)

Heavy metals

Rochman et al. (2013b)

PAH

Fisner et al. (2017)

Antibiotic

Wen et al. (2018)

CadmiumZhang et al. (2019b)

Lubrication oil

Llorca et al. (2018)

PCB

Wang et al. (2015)

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

Guo et al. (2018)

PFOSA

Zhan et al. (2016)

Roxithromycin

Hu et al. (2017)

17α-Ethinylestradiol

Qu et al. (2018)

Antibiotic

Sleight et al. (2017)

Benzene derivatives

Kedzierski et al. (2018)

Heavy metals

Rochman et al. (2013a)

Odesmethylvelafaxine

Pascall et al. (2005)

PCB

Wu et al. (2016)

PFOSA

Guo et al. (2018)

Phenanthrene
Venlafaxine
LDPE

Heavy metals

Rochman et al. (2013a)

HDPE

Heavy metals

Holmes et al. (2014)

PBAT polybutylene adipate terephthalate, HDPE high-density polyethylene, PFOSA perfluorooctanesulfonamide, PPCP pharmaceuticals personal care product2018; Llorca et al. 2018; Ma et al. 2020a). It has been reported that the microplastic of a lighter colour contained
PAH of lower molecular weight and lower concentrations of PAH or PCB than the microplastic of a darker
colour (Antunes et al. 2013; Fisner et al. 2017). The
hypothesised relationship between colour and chemicalcomposition against microplastic sorption can encourage
research for alternative colour pigments that are environmentally friendly (Ma et al. 2020a). Furthermore,
microplastics of higher density were reported to containlower concentrations of PAH, PCB, and phenanthrene(Fries and Zarfl 2012; Karapanagioti and Klontza 2008;
Mato et al. 2001).

The ageing of microplastic cannot be ignored because
weathered microplastic not only increases in surface area
but also generates oxygen groups, porosity, roughness,charge, and polarity (Fotopoulou and Karapanagioti2012). Hydrogen bonds formed among the oxygencontaining functional groups of aged microplastic cansubstantially increase the sorption capacity (Huffer et al.
2018; Liu et al. 2018). In an experiment by Kedzierski
et al. with 502 day long-term exposure, Ni and Cu were
found on PVC. Si, Al, Fe, and Mg were found on polybutylene adipate terephthalate (PBAT) after 1 year, while
no change was observed for PET over the entire period(Kedzierski et al. 2018). Moreover, the effect of(2021) 8:12

Page 9 of 26

microplastic ageing on pollutant sorption capacity varies
in the past reports. According to Ma et al. weathered oraged microplastic was reported to possess less pollutant
sorption capacity (Ma et al. 2020a). However, aged
microplastic was also reported to show higher pollutant
sorption capacity than virgin microplastic (Huffer et al.
2018; Liu et al. 2018; Yu et al. 2019a). The colour, density, and surface morphology or weathering or microplastic play a role synergistically at influencing the sorption
ability of a microplastic particle, and the sequence of factors mentioned does not reflect the importance of a factor over the other. Mixed findings from the past
literature suggest that the effect of microplastic ageingon pollutant sorption capacity depends on the type ofpollutant or microplastic, and the gradual changes intheir chemical bonds, forces, or interactions over time.

diffusion into the material as compared to PE that absorbs more pollutants into structural gaps within thepolymer (Pascall et al. 2005; Teuten et al. 2007).
The affinity of pollutants with microplastic varies as
it depends on chemical interactions, including electrostatic interaction, van der Waals force, hydrophobic
interaction, π–π interaction, or hydrogen bonding(Ma et al. 2020a) (Fig. 2). For example, the hydrogenbonding between PA and antibiotics caused strong affinity because of the amide groups (Li et al. 2018b).
In another example, between carboxyl-functionalised
polystyrene (PS–COOH) and amine-modified polystyrene (PS–NH2) with different surface charges, thelatter caused embryonic apoptosis, cell death, oxidative stress, and cell membrane disruption on the embryos of sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus (Vega andEpel 2004).
Hydrophobic POP are currently among the mostresearched microplastic-associated pollutants because of
their high affinity and hydrophobicity-driven sorption
with microplastic (Liu et al. 2019d; Rios et al. 2007).
Hydrophobic organic pollutants include PCB, PAH, andother endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDC) or benzene
derivatives (Ma et al. 2017; Ma et al. 2018; Velzeboer
et al. 2014). For example, the strong interaction between
microplastic and hydrophobic organic PAH in theaquatic environment has been reported ubiquitously(Tan et al. 2019). In terms of crystallinity, hydrophobicorganic pollutants typically favoured amorphous to crystalline structures, as organic contaminants harboured
higher affinities for rubber plastics than glass plastics(Guo et al. 2012; Rochman et al. 2013a; Wu et al. 2001).
Hydrophilic POP, represented by perfluorooctanesulfonate(PFOS)
andperfluorooctanesulfonamide

Amelia et al. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science

2.7 Chemical properties of microplastic as a factor

Besides physical properties, the chemical properties of
microplastic and pollutants, such as composition, synthesis method, crystallinity, stability, polarity, functionalgroup, and chemical bonding, also influence the sorption
capacity of microplastic (Li et al. 2018b; Llorca et al.
2018; Wang et al. 2015). A chemical structure with alarge surface area or porosity can lead to higher sorption
capacity. For example, the sorption capacity of PE wasthe highest, but the sorption rate of PET was the highest.
The former’s larger surface area, greater gap between
polymer chains, and free volume led to relatively higher
sorption capacity and diffusion of the pollutant into PE(Karapanagioti and Klontza 2008; Rochman et al. 2013a;
Teuten et al. 2007). In contrast, the faster sorption rateon PET could be attributed to its smaller surface area
and glassy polymeric structure, which does not facilitate

Fig. 2 A general illustration depicting the varied affinity of different microplastics to different environmental pollutants such as heavy metals,
hydrophilic compounds, and hydrophobic compounds

(2021) 8:12

Page 10 of 26(PFOSA), interact dominantly with microplastic via partitioning rather than electrostatic force and hydrophobicity. The PFOS is mainly anionic, whereas PFOSA is
non-ionic because of the sulphonamide functionalgroup; PE is thus more attracted to PFOSA because of
the presence of the functional group (Wang et al. 2015).
Furthermore, PE, PS, PP, PA, and PVC microplastics
were found to sorb hydrophilic antibiotics, such as trimethoprim (TMP), ciprofloxacin hydrochloride (CIP
HCl), tetracycline (TC), amoxicillin (AMX), and sulfadiazine (SDZ) (Li et al. 2018b; Shen et al. 2018).
Different types of microplastics possess varied pollutant sorption and affinity as their dissimilar structure
generates different chemical interactions, such as hydrophobicity or hydrophilicity. For example, non-polar
PFOSA was more attracted to the non-polar PE via
hydrophobic interactions but less attracted to thebenzene-containing PS caused by decreased free volume,steric hindrance, and bond rotation (Wang et al. 2015).
However, Yu et al. reported that PS can generate planarity, hydrophobic, and π–π interactions, whereas PE cangenerate only van der Waals interactions (Yu et al.
2019b). Contradictions were also reported regarding thetype of plastic as a sorption factor, where no differencein PAH sorption was observed in PP and PE (Fisneret al. 2017). In-depth investigation is required to discover additional trends and associations of physical orchemical properties that are responsible for the sorption
capacity of a microplastic with a specific pollutant.
Furthermore, a stronger hydrophobic interaction
causes microplastic to attract benzene derivatives rather
than single benzene (Huffer and Hofmann 2016). The
PVC microplastic was reported to attract five bisphenol
analogues by hydrophobic, π–π, covalent hydrogen, andhalogen interactions. Electrostatic forces were present
but are relatively easier to be influenced by external environmental factors (Wu et al. 2016). In contrast, PCB
was reported to sorb more onto PE (highest uptake diffusion and partition coefficients) than PS and PVC.
However, the sorption capacity with PVC reduced at
higher chlorinated congeners because of the increasingcohesive density and molar volume of PCB (Pascall et al.
2005).
Additionally, the affinity or sorption capacity of microplastic and metals was neither temporally nor spatiallyassociated (Yu et al. 2019b). High-density polyethylene(HDPE) was reported to have relatively lower affinity tometals than PET, PVC, LDPE, and PP (Rochman et al.
2013a). Sorption between metals and virgin or beachedmicroplastic was rapid and significant. Virgin PE, whichshowed less affinity, possessed charged or polar surfaces,
charged contaminants or additives, and nonspecific interactions between the metal organic complexes and thehydrophobic surface (Holmes et al. 2012). Beached oraged PE, which showed higher affinity to heavy metals,
contained not only chemical precipitation and oxygencontaining groups but also biofilms, which may contribute to the relatively high partition coefficient (Brennecke
et al. 2016; Mato et al. 2001; Turner and Holmes 2015).
Overall, as the attraction of different pollutants to therespective plastics depends on the ever-changing environmental conditions and physicochemical properties ofboth the substances, the difficulty of selecting the ‘best’
type of plastic could likely encourage future research attention on the development of an inert material.

Amelia et al. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science

2.8 Water properties as a factor

Environmental conditions and water properties, such as
dissolved organic matter, pH, and salinity, have been reported to affect the pollutant sorption capacity of microplastic. The role of dissolved and particulate organic
matter in microplastic sorption requires attention, as it
can alter the in situ sorption capacity and distribution ofmarine microplastic (Besseling et al. 2016; Koelmans
et al. 2009; Lambert et al. 2013). According to Wu et al.
dissolved organic matter can influence the sorption
process by (1) interacting with pollutants via complexation or hydrophobic interactions, (2) competition withother sorbents, and (3) subsequent interaction with pollutants after sorption onto other sorbents (Wu et al.
2016). The dissolved organic matter reduced the sorption capacity of PE for three pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCP), namely triclosan (TCS),
17α-ethinyl estradiol (EE2), and 4-methylbenzylidene
camphor (4MBC), because of the higher affinity between
pharmaceuticals and dissolved organic matter. However,dissolved organic matter did not reduce the sorption of
PE microplastic for carbamazepine (CBZ) (Wu et al.
2016).
Investigating the impact of pH on microplastic sorption is important, as the marine ecosystem has been experiencing acidification. As reported by Guo et al. thesorption capacity of PS and PVC for antibiotic tylosin(TYL) increases as pH decreases, because the proportionof TYL+ is larger, while the sorption capacity of PP and
PE has minimal changes (Guo et al. 2018). The sorptionof PS and PE for PFOS also increases as pH decreases,
which protonates the microplastic surface and produces
more anionic PFOS. Additionally, the PE surface can beeasier to protonate than the PS surface (Wang et al.
2015). However, when the pH decreases, the sorption
capacity of HDPE for Pb, Ni, Co, and Cd decreases,
whereas for Cr and Cu, the sorption capacity increases
and remains constant, respectively (Holmes et al. 2012;
Holmes et al. 2014). Overall, although the pH of the surrounding water has been shown to influence the pollutant sorption by microplastic, such as throughprotonation (Guo et al. 2018), the literature regarding(2021) 8:12

Page 11 of 26

the impact of pH against pollutant sorption by microplastic exhibits a need for a broader comparative or statistical approach to achieve insights into the associative
patterns of pH with microplastic and pollutants.
Salinity has both positive and negative effects on thesorption behaviour. Increased salinity has been reported
to increase sorption capacities (Velzeboer et al. 2014;
Wang et al. 2015), such as elevated PCB or lubrication
oil in PE and PS (Hu et al. 2017; Zhan et al. 2016). However, increased salinity was reported to decrease sorption
capacities, namely in dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane(DDT) and ciprofloxacin because of the competition forthe sorption site (Bakir et al. 2014; Li et al. 2018b; Liuet al. 2018). Additionally, the effect of salinity was not
obvious for phenanthrene (Bakir et al. 2014). Nonetheless, a fixed pattern was not present in terms of the salinity effect against metal sorption by microplastic.
Increased salinity reduced the sorption capacity of Cd,
Co, and Ni while increasing that of Cr, but interestingly
kept that of Cu and Pb constant. It is apparent from theliterature that salinity influences sorption capacity byprincipally disturbing the free ions and the competition
for sorption sites (Holmes et al. 2014).
In summary, the literature review suggested thatchemical interactions could be a significant factor of pollutant sorption by microplastic, as the chemical bonds
on a microplastic is not only associated with the physicalproperties of the polymer (i.e. material, colour, and age)
but also the properties of the surrounding medium (i.e.
pH and salinity). In other words, the underlying force
that allows the other physical properties of the microplastic and the surrounding medium to affect its sorbability is the chemical bonding. For example, theinfluence of microplastic age and material against thesorption capacity of a pollutant was eventually still because of the differences in the surface functional groups,
polarity, or chemical forces such as hydrophobicity overtime or across various pollutant types (Huffer and Hofmann 2016; Liu et al. 2018). Research in the direction of
investigating the chemical interactions between microplastic, pollutants, and the environment can disclose
new indirect factors of pollutant sorption by
microplastic.

bioaccumulate quantitatively more toxic pollutants because of the larger ratio of the surface area to the volume of the microplastic (Avio et al. 2017; Zettler et al.
2013; Teuten et al. 2009).
The existence of microplastic has been found in theguts of benthic invertebrates (Naidu et al. 2018; Nakki
et al. 2017), fish (Savoca et al. 2019), deep ocean biota(Courtene-Jones et al. 2017), and larger mammals (Besseling et al. 2015) from different trophic levels. Ingested
microplastic is transferred throughout the food web,driving increasing concerns about the threats to aquaticbiota (Betts 2008; Wright et al. 2013a). Microplastic canaccumulate and pose hazards in marine ecosystems andorganisms (Guzzetti et al. 2018; Horton et al. 2017).
Prior to understanding the threats of microplastic
against marine organisms, it is imperative that we grasp
the factors that affect the bioavailability of microplastic,
as it indirectly affects the extent of dangers that the organisms are subjected to. The factors of microplastic
bioavailability toward organisms are the size, colour,density, morphology, and mobility of microplastic, as
well as the species, morphology, and physiology of organisms (e.g. ingestion likelihood, egestion rate, andtranslocation potential) (Baldwin 1995; Boerger et al.
2010; Cheung et al. 2018; Kokalj et al. 2018; Ory et al.
2017; Peters et al. 2017). Additionally, as each type of organism consumes microplastic differently because of therespective organism physiology and morphology, therepresentative model organisms selected in microplastic
toxicological studies should be specifically based on the
research objectives (Ma et al. 2020a). Nonetheless, theexisting research has accumulatively confirmed that thetypes of organisms and the physicochemical traits of
microplastic influence the bioavailability of microplastic
to organisms, by altering the distribution and availabilityof microplastic as food for organisms, which influences
the microplastic-associated hazards or extent of damage
faced by different species (Setala et al. 2016).
Microplastic causes dangers to marine ecosystems andorganisms through several approaches. In a typical marine ecosystem, microplastic acts as a reservoir or vector,
thus accumulating chemical contaminants, transportingthem over long distances, and leading to the high bioavailability of pollutants toward organisms when consumed (Avio et al. 2017; Brennecke et al. 2016; Caruso
2019; Liao and Yang 2020) (Fig. 3). Microplastic by itself
without pollutants also poses various indirect and direct
hazards to diverse organisms, which include translocation, physiological stress, energy budget alteration, abnormal metabolism, immune response, behaviouralalteration, fecundity, egestion inefficiency, severe intestinal damage, and mortality (Besseling et al. 2015; Betts
2008; Courtene-Jones et al. 2017; Gambardella et al.
2017; Greven et al. 2016; Jeong et al. 2016; Jovanovic

Amelia et al. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science

2.9 Hazards of microplastic to the marine ecosystem andits organisms

The widely known impacts of large plastic debris are theloss of aesthetic impression, disrupted tourism- andmarine-related economy (e.g. aquaculture, energy production, fishing, and shipping), and the death and injury
of marine wildlife (Lusher et al. 2015). In contrast, although both macroplastic and microplastic can alsotransport pathogens and release plasticizers or additives,
microplastic can sorb and desorb and, hence,Amelia et al. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science(2021) 8:12

Page 12 of 26

Fig. 3 An illustration of the pathways of microplastic and its general impact to the marine ecosystem and organisms

2017; Lei et al. 2018; Leroueil et al. 2008; Naidu et al.
2018; Nakki et al. 2017; Prokic et al. 2019; Savoca et al.
2019; Setala et al. 2014; Song et al. 2014; Vajargah et al.
2018; Vajargah et al. 2019; Veneman et al. 2017; Wrightet al. 2013b). Other than having physiological effects,
microplastic causes external effects to the ecosystem byshifting the distribution of food and light for organisms(Cole et al. 2016; Song et al. 2014).
The translocation of microplastic in marine organisms
has been reported (Scanes et al. 2019; Windsor et al.
2019). The movement of microplastic through biologicalmembranes can have varying impacts depending on thespecies and location that the microplastic is translocatedto. The translocation routes can begin from the ingestion or inhalation of microplastic to the gastrointestinal
tracts, gills, or lungs, and then to the circulatory system,
haemolymph, liver, or kidney (Abbasi et al. 2018; Leroueil et al. 2008; Su et al. 2018; Vajargah et al. 2018;
Vajargah et al. 2019). Moreover, microplastic causes
gastrointestinal blockage, reduced feeding or satiation(Lusher et al. 2013), structural deterioration, nutritionalor growth complications (Jabeen et al. 2018; Peda et al.
2016; Yin et al. 2018), inflammation (Lu et al. 2016), andalteration of metabolic profile (Mattsson et al. 2014).
Furthermore, microplastic contributed to egestion inefficiency and intestinal damage. For example, microplastic produced higher retention times in themonogonont rotifer, Brachionus koreanus (Jeong et al.
2016).
In
anotherexample,microplastic
inCaenorhabditis elegans caused mortality, accumulation,
lowered intestinal Ca2+ level, and elevated glutathione Stransferase expression, which led to chronic intestinal
damage (Lei et al. 2018). Additionally, microplastic wasreported to externally affect marine organisms and ecosystems. A water surface that is polluted with microplastic impedes the respiration and photosynthesis of marine
plankton (Amin et al. 2020; Song et al. 2014). Other thanthis, ingested microplastic that is excreted along with
faecal matter can alter the density and sinking velocityof the latter, which is an important food source, henceinterrupting the normal pattern of food distribution forother marine organisms (Cole et al. 2011, 2016).
However, contradictions were also reported. For example, limited acute toxicity and no mortality were observed from the ingestion of microplastic by the
Antarctic krill Euphausia superba (Dawson et al. 2018).
In summary, the sorption, aggregation, ingestion, retention, egestion, reingestion, and release of chemicals
present potential mechanisms for the transport of POP
and metals. The transfer and bioaccumulation of organic
pollutants, such as PAH, PCB, EDC, and polybrominateddiphenyl ether (PBDE), in living organisms, such as lugworms, marine amphipods, mussels, rainbow fish, andmicroalgae, via sorption on microplastic have been detected (Fisner et al. 2017; Guo et al. 2020; Llorca et al.
2018; Rehse et al. 2018; Rochman et al. 2013b; Wanget al. 2020b). Although some studies have not reported
significant negative effects of microplastic, reports on

(2021) 8:12

Page 13 of 26

the hazards of microplastic toward the environment
should not be ignored.

organisms. Furthermore, recent studies have shown thatmicroplastic can be a vector for heavy metal contamination in the marine environment (Brennecke et al. 2016;
Davarpanah and Guilhermino 2015). The model animal,
zebrafish (Danio rerio), exposed to Ag-incubated PE
microbeads significantly increased the proportion of intestinal Ag levels, which suggested that the microplastic
altered the uptake route of a metal contaminant in amodel fish species (Khan et al. 2015). Such ecotoxicological responses by microplastic-bound pollutants havebeen observed in other cases as well. The exposure of
lugworms (Arenicola marina) to PVC particles containing TCS or nonylphenol (NP) resulted in lower survivorship, feeding rate, and phagocytic activity than that of
the lugworms to clean PVC particles (Browne et al.
2013). Using Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes) as model
animals, the researchers indicated that the ingestion of
LDPE microplastic with the environmental pollutantssorbed from San Diego Bay may cause hepatic toxicity
and pathological responses (Rochman et al. 2013a). Pollutant exposure that was transferred by microplastic resulted in alterations in behaviour, wherein beachhoppers(Platorchestia smithi) that ingested PAH-contaminatedPE beads displayed reduced jump height and survival
rate (Tosetto et al. 2016). Moreover, microplastic could
be a vector for the transport of pathogens. Viršek et al.
(2017) demonstrated 28 bacterial species on the microplastic collected from North Adriatic, including Aeromonas salmonicida, which is a pathogenic bacterium thatseverely impacts fish aquaculture.
As a vector, the microplastic itself can be transferredthrough the trophic levels. Research has shown thatmicroplastic is readily ingested by zooplanktons (Botterell et al. 2019), which is the main food source for many
secondary consumers. Ingested microplastic could either
be transferred up the trophic levels via predation (Farrell
and Nelson 2013) or be egested from the food web andthen very likely be re-ingested (Mazurais et al. 2015).
There are relatively few studies on the estimation of thepotential role of microplastic in transferring chemicals
through the trophic structure. Lugworms that were exposed to PCB-contaminated PE showed an increase inbioaccumulation than the control group exposed to PCB
alone (Besseling et al. 2013), which was in agreementwith an earlier estimation of the bioavailability model
discussed by Teuten et al. (2007). For the top predators,
namely great shearwaters (Puffinus gravis) (Ryan 1988)
and short-tailed shearwaters (Puffinus tenuirostris) (Tanaka et al. 2013), the concentrations of PCB and PBDE
in the fat tissue and eggs showed a positive correlation
to the amount of ingested plastic particles. However,note that the pollutants accumulated in the trophic
structure may be transferred through the food item or
prey itself rather than the microplastic vector. A

Amelia et al. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science

2.10 Types of microplastic-bound pollutantsbioaccumulated in organisms

Microplastic pollution in the ocean is one of the mostserious recent environmental problems. The ingestion of
microplastic has been reported for a wide range of organisms, from herbivores and secondary consumers to
the top predators (e.g. Barboza et al. 2018a; Clark et al.
2016; Nelms et al. 2018; Vroom et al. 2017; Wang et al.
2020b). Previous research has indicated the potential adverse and long-term environmental impacts of microplastic in the ocean. For example, the ingestion of larger
microscopic particles may cause harmful physical effects
to living organisms (Wright et al. 2013b). Moreover,other hypotheses suggested the deleterious effects of
microplastic, regarding its role in the delivery of harmful
chemicals to the ecosystem via the food chain (Avioet al. 2017; Hartmann et al. 2017; Lohmann 2017; Wanget al. 2018a; Wang et al. 2020b; Zhang et al. 2020a). It is
well known that microplastic in seawater may sorb
chemical pollutants, e.g. hydrophobic organic chemicals.
These chemicals may originate from the chemical additives that were incorporated into plastics during manufacture (Kwon et al. 2017) or accumulated from thesurrounding polluted water because of its high sorption
capacity (Bakir et al. 2012; Liu et al. 2016; Velzeboer
et al. 2014).
Similarly, when conditions move in the opposite direction that discourages sorption, contaminants are at riskof being desorbed from the ingested microplastic into
the biological systems of living organisms. This situation
makes microplastic both a source and a sink of pollutants (Liu et al. 2019c). Additionally, the reports of thebioaccumulation of toxic pollutants in other living organisms suggest a similar situation for humans, whereby
microplastic–pollutant complexes can release the pollutants into the surrounding biological tissue. Therefore,
this raises an important question of whether microplastic significantly contributes to the uptake and accumulation of environmental pollutants through the marine
food web than the other sources.
Thus far, several types of environmental pollutants
that can be found in living organisms along with plastic
debris have been documented, which suggests thatmicroplastic can act as vectors for the transfer of chemical contaminants from seawater to organisms (Table 3).
Because of the hydrophobic surface of the plastics, ahydrophobic organic compound is the most noticeable
category that transfers via this pathway. Plastic materials,
such as PS, PE, and PP, may sorb hydrophobic organic
compounds, namely PCB, PBDE, PAH, and hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), and then, carry them toAmelia et al. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science(2021) 8:12

Page 14 of 26

Table 3 Types of microplastic-carried pollutants bioaccumulated in marine organisms
Organism

Class

Marine unicellular alga (Tetraselmis chuii)

Chlorodendrophyceae Copper

Pollutant

Microplastic ReferencePE

Davarpanah and Guilhermino(2015)

Lugworm (Arenicola marina)

Polychaeta

PCBs

PS

Besseling et al. (2013)

Lugworms (Arenicola marina)

Polychaeta

Triclosan or nonylphenol

PVC

Browne et al. (2013)

Mediterranean mussel (Mytilus
galloprovincialis)

Bivalvia

HBCDs

PS

Jang et al. (2016)

Peppery furrow shell (Scrobicularia plana)

Bivalvia

BaP

LDPE

O’Donovan et al. (2018)a

PBDEs and PCBs

PE and PP

Yeo et al. (2020)

Malacostraca

PBDEs

PE

Chua et al. (2014)

ZooplanktonaMarine amphipod (Allorchestes Compressa)
Daphnia (Daphnia magna)

Branchiopoda

PCB

PS

Lin et al. (2019)

Marine copepod (Acartia tonsa)

Maxillopoda

PAHs

PS

Sørensen et al. (2020)

Marine copepod (Acartia tonsa)

Maxillopoda

Triclosan

PE

Syberg et al. (2017)

Marine copepod (Calanus finmarchicus)

Hexanauplia

PAHs

PS

Sørensen et al. (2020)

Beachhopper (Platorchestia smithi)

Malacostraca

PAHs

PE

Tosetto et al. (2016)

North Pacific lanternfish (Tarletonbeania
taylori)

Actinopterygii

Lower chlorinated PCBs/
pesticides

Plastica

Gassel and Rochman (2019)Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes)

Actinopterygii

PHAs, PCBs, and PBDEs

LDPERochman et al. (2013a)

zebrafish (Danio rerio)

Actinopterygii

Ag

PE

Khan et al. (2015)

Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

Actinopterygii

Ag

PE

Khan et al. (2017)

Rainbow fish (Melanotaenia fluviatilis)

Actinopterygii

PBDEs

PP and PS

Wardrop et al. (2016)

Rabbitfish (Siganus rivulatus)

Actinopterygii

PCB

DPE and PP

van der Hal et al. (2020)

Streaked shearwater (Calonectris
leucomelas)

Aves

PCB

PE

Tanaka et al. (2018)

Streaked shearwater (Calonectris
leucomelas)

Aves

PBDEs

PE

Tanaka et al. (2015)

Laysan albatross (Phoebastria immutabilis)

Aves

PCBs, PAHs, and pesticides

PP and PEaRios et al. (2007)

Northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis)

Aves

PCBs

Plastic

Herzke et al. (2016)

Short-tailed shearwaters (Puffinus
tenuirostris)

Aves

PBDEs

Plastica

Tanaka et al. (2013)

Great Shearwaters (Puffinus gravis)

Aves

PCBs

Plastica

Ryan (1988)a

No informationcomparison with the concentrations of stomach plastic
debris revealed that high PCB levels in northern fulmar(Fulmarus glacialis) are more likely to be contributed bytheir prey, instead of the plastics debris (Herzke et al.
2016). Moreover, in contrast to the vector role, microplastic could play a scavenger role that removes contaminants from individuals. Using 13C-labelled PBDE, theresearchers showed that microplastic ingestion could
both transfer and remove contaminants from sandhopper (Talitrus saltator), indicating a partial balanceamong the positive and the negative effects (Scopetani
et al. 2018). Such conclusion is supported by the correlation between the concentrations of the hydrophobic organic compounds in the muscle tissue and theabundance of plastic particles in the stomachs of herring(Clupea harengus membras) collected along the Baltic
Sea (Ogonowski et al. 2017).

However, most of the model analyses indicated thatthe ingestion of microplastic may not be an important
pathway for the transfer of sorbed chemicals from theseawater to the ecosystem (Bakir et al. 2016; Gouin et al.
2011; Koelmans et al. 2014; Koelmans et al. 2016).
Nevertheless, the extent of pollutants to be accumulated
in the food web via the pathway of microplastic as a vector is still inconclusive. Furthermore, the chemical affinities of the plastics may influence their vector role
(Koelmans et al. 2013). By measuring the desorption
rates in artificial gut fluid, researchers have found thatthe intake of microplastic-bound hydrophobic organic
compounds by organisms with similar gut retention
times as fish varied according to the type of chemical.
Moreover, the uptake of hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH)
via PE microplastic ingestion can be negligible as compared to the uptake via other exposure routes, such as(2021) 8:12

Page 15 of 26

water ventilation and food ingestion. However, microplastic ingestion can still increase the total uptake rate ofpentachlorobenzene (PeCB) and hexachlorobenzene(HeCB) (Lee et al. 2019). Hence, future studies need tofocus on the plastic debris that may have higher chemical affinities than the others. For example, PBAT has agreater vector effect than traditional materials because of
its higher sorption and desorption capacities as an organic pollutant (Zuo et al. 2019).

organisms, which were (1) strong sorption and strong desorption, (2) strong sorption and low desorption, (3) low
sorption and strong desorption, and (4) low sorption andlow desorption (Coffin et al. 2019; Magara et al. 2018; PaulPont et al. 2016; Tourinho et al. 2019; Ziajahromi et al.
2019). Firstly, microplastic with strong sorption and strong
desorption acts as a vector for bioaccumulation. Pollutant
uptake at high sorption levels can lead to high chemical desorption and increased bioaccumulation in an organism. A
fast desorption rate was reported under gut conditions. For
example, the 50-fold increment of microplastic (high sorption) led to higher venlafaxine concentrations (high desorption and bioaccumulation) in the liver of pond fish
Misgurnus anguillicaudatus (Qu et al. 2018). In another example, 30-fold pollutant desorption was observed in the gut
than in the seawater by Bakir et al. (Bakir et al. 2014; Coffin
et al. 2019; Nor and Koelmans, 2019). Secondly, the scenario with strong sorption and low desorption may decrease bioavailability despite the pre-sorbing of microplastic
with the pollutant. Examples that resembled this scenario
include the low bioaccumulation of pre-sorbed fluoranthene and Ag by PE in mussels and zebrafish, respectively(Khan et al. 2015; Magara et al. 2018; Paul-Pont et al.
2016). Thirdly, the scenario with low sorption and strong
desorption has a low sorbed fraction to desorb a high quantity of pollutants. This scenario resembles the low sorptionof PBDE and bifenthrin on PE that are bioaccumulated
equally or nearly completely in amphipods and midge Chironomus tepperi, respectively (Chua et al. 2014; Ziajahromi
et al. 2019). Fourthly, the scenario with low sorption andlow desorption typically ends with proportionally low bioaccumulation. For example, the low sorption of fluoranthene by microplastic was shown to produce low
fluoranthene bioaccumulation in mussels Mytilus spp.
(Paul-Pont et al. 2016). In this scenario, the main source ofpollutants is typically through dietary means; hence, the distribution or bioavailability of pollutants would be the samewith or without microplastic (Tourinho et al. 2019).
However, the ingestion of low-contaminated microplastic can lead to low bioaccumulation. As shown in
Nor and Koelmans (2019), PCB were transferred fromcontaminated food to clean PE microplastic under asimulated gut condition. This suggests a fifth scenario,
whereby instead of pre-sorbed microplastic, unsorbed or
low-contaminated microplastic is ingested and thenegested in a sorbed state caused by the strong sorptionof pollutants in the organism’s gut.
Furthermore, a delayed effect may occur, such as during
or after depuration, and hence, it can be an important experimental step. For instance, excluding or including theremaining microplastic in the organism’s gut at the end of
an interval or experiment can cause disparities, particularly
in comparative research (Paul-Pont et al. 2016; Tourinho
et al. 2019). In a study on bioaccumulation in mussel

Amelia et al. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science

2.11 Pollutant bioaccumulation of microplastic and its
factors

The factors of bioaccumulation are desorption, organism
internal environment, and retention time (Bakir et al.
2014; Barboza et al. 2018a; Ma et al. 2020a). Other bioaccumulation factors were similar to those that affect desorption, such as the size of microplastic andhydrophobicity (Ma et al. 2016). Bioaccumulation has
been investigated and reported by several studies (Barboza et al. 2018a; Besseling et al. 2017; Chua et al. 2014;
Ma et al. 2016; Rehse et al. 2018; Rochman et al. 2013b).
Bioaccumulation was prominently exhibited in a recent work by Barboza et al. wherein mercury concentrations in the gills and livers of juvenile European seabass
Dicentrarchus labrax were doubled in the microplastic/
mercury mixture as compared to in the mercury-only
setup (Barboza et al. 2018c). The presence of PE microplastic was also reported to increase the bioaccumulation of PBDE, PCB, and PAH (Rochman et al. 2013a). In
another study, PBDE was bioaccumulated in the marine
amphipod Allorchestes compressa in the presence of PE
microplastic (Chua et al. 2014). Moreover, the congenerhydrophobicity of PCB congeners showed varied bioaccumulation capacity in the marine lugworm Arenicola
marina in the presence of PS (Besseling et al. 2013,2017). Additionally, the presence of smaller PS microplastic (50 nm) increased the bioaccumulation of phenanthrene in planktonic crustacean Daphnia magna.
However, a contradiction was reported in a study
when the microplastic PA/bisphenol mixture and thebisphenol-only setup did not exhibit dissimilar bioaccumulation or EC50 for Daphnia magna immobility(Rehse et al. 2018). The PA material could be a negligible vector of bisphenol. A similar finding was reported
where the microplastic PE/phenanthrene mixture andthe phenanthrene-only setup did not exhibit dissimilar
EC50 for the immobilisation of Daphnia magna (Frydkjaer et al. 2017). Batel et al. (2016) reported biomagnification when microplastic was found to transfer benzo[a] pyrene (BaP) from shrimp nauplii to zebrafish in an
artificial aquatic food chain of zebrafish Danio rerio andbrine shrimp nauplii Artemia sp.
Tourinho et al. suggested four possible scenarios of pollutant bioaccumulation introduced by microplastic into(2021) 8:12

Page 16 of 26

Mytilus spp., the fluoranthene-only setup showed more
toxicity before depuration, while higher fluoranthene concentration and histopathological damage were observed in
the fluoranthene/microplastic mixture setup after depuration (Paul-Pont et al. 2016). Moreover, the combined setupof the pyrene/PE microplastic mixture showed the delayedmortality of fish Pomatoschistus microps (Oliveira et al.
2013). Nevertheless, the existing literature indicates thatmost studies have not reported a prominent bioaccumulation of pollutants by microplastic. According to Koelmans
et al. the dietary pathway had a more direct bioaccumulation effect than microplastic (Koelmans et al. 2016).
The literature review revealed the impact of the differences in methodology toward the data. Researchers
should consider the presence or absence of preincubation or pre-sorption, depuration period, combined
co-exposure effect of a microplastic/pollutant mixture
analysis, single effect of a pollutant-only analysis, and adose–response analysis (Khan et al. 2015; Zhu et al.
2018a). Questions and challenges still exist concerning
the bioaccumulation factors of microplastic-bound pollutants in organisms, as there are still gaps in this fieldthat is yet to be thoroughly studied partially because of
the varied internal environments of different organisms.

add to the combined effects of microplastic–pollutant
complexes (Fig. 4). The contaminants were reported todesorb in the intestine of organisms followed by translocation to the circulatory system, intestinal epithelia,
tissues, and organs such as liver. The combined effectsof microplastic and the bioaccumulation of pollutantscaused by microplastic–pollutant complexes include
physiological stress, morphological abnormalities, immobilisation, neurotoxicity, oxidative damage, enzymatic
dysregulation, reduced growth rate, reduced chlorophyll
concentration, altered immune response, genotoxicity,and mortality (Barboza et al. 2018b; Batel et al. 2016;
Khan et al. 2017; Kim et al. 2017a; Ma et al. 2016; Prata
et al. 2018; Qiao et al. 2019; Qu et al. 2018; Syberg et al.
2017; Zhu et al. 2019). Heavy metals accumulate in brain
and muscle tissues, causing the abovementioned neurotoxicity, oxidative damage, and enzymatic dysregulation,for example, the Ag accumulated in the intestinal mucous, mucosal epithelium, muscle layer, and serosa(Khan et al. 2017). In another example, bioaccumulated
phenanthrene and its by-products caused joint system
toxicity and immobilisation and were translocated into
the daphnid tissue, gut, and carapace (Ma et al. 2016).
The combined effects of microplastic and pollutants,
such as metals, were also detected on marine fish andmicroalgae (Kim et al. 2017a).
However, there are conflicting findings about the biological toxicity of microplastic. For example, Rochman
and co-workers reported the nil toxic effect of virginmicroplastic against a fish cell line (Rochman et al.

Amelia et al. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science

2.12 Risks of pollutant bioaccumulation to the marine
ecosystem and humans
2.12.1 Risks toward the marine ecosystem

Other than the dangers of microplastic on its own, therisks of contaminants that are bound to the microplastic

Fig. 4 An illustration of the impacts and combined effects of microplastic and pollutants toward marine organisms

(2021) 8:12

Page 17 of 262014). In another study, the data of microplastic ingestion by the Antarctic krill Euphausia superba showed no
mortality, toxicity, weight loss, or bioaccumulation(Dawson et al. 2018). Moreover, some research reported
lowered concentration exposure and reduced short-term
effects of bisphenol A (BPA) and PAH toward Daphnia
magna (Kleinteich et al. 2018; Rehse et al. 2018).

in vitro method, a systematic model that included themouth, gastric, small intestine, and large intestine digestive phases (Liao and Yang 2020). The Cr levels were highin the gastric, small intestinal, and large intestinal phases.
Furthermore, some pollutants, monomers, and additives
in microplastic are POP and EDC that have been detectedin the human body in a higher amount than expected bygut exposure, indicating substance introduction via otherpossible routes (Galloway 2015; Koelmans et al. 2016;
Thompson et al. 2009; Vethaak and Leslie 2016). Additionally, long-term consumption of water contaminatedwith a plasticizer, phthalate, at levels above the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) threshold (< 6 μg/L) could cause liver and reproductive complications (Lambert et al. 2014; Martin and Voulvoulis 2009; USEPA
2012). Other health-threatening plastic additives (i.e.
monomers, initiators, catalysts, emulsifiers, and stabilisers)
include styrene, benzoyl peroxide, zeolites, and azobisisobutyronitrile (Todd et al. 2003). Carcinogenic PAH is
among the environmental contaminants sorbed by microplastic in the ocean. These chemicals, now considered to
be environmental contaminants, bioaccumulate in thefatty tissues of animals, which are eventually consumed byhumans (Hwang et al. 2020). The literature review also
demonstrated that the leaching of sorbed contaminants
and the use of some additives and monomers contributeto the toxicity of microplastic–pollutant complexes toward living organisms, which include humans.
Although there are older studies describing the effector existence of microplastic in humans and some relatively newer studies on the effect of microplastic conducted using model organisms or human cell lines as
the reference, there is an urgent need for a more recent
investigation on the possibility of microplastic causing
any medical condition directly against human patients(Pauly et al. 1998; Porter et al. 1999; Stock et al. 2019).
The lack of strong evidence of plastic leading to any direct detrimental effect on humans may allow continuous
plastic production, consumption, and leaking of plastic
debris into the oceans.

Amelia et al. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science

2.12.2 Risks toward humans

Microplastic can be introduced to humans via inhalation
or dietary routes through the consumption of seafood,such as fish and shellfish. Based on the abundances observed, it was estimated that Chinese shellfish consumers
could be exposed to 100,000 microplastics each year
(Wright and Kelly 2017). Furthermore, approximately
700 microplastics/kg of microplastic, mainly PET andPE, were found in 15 brands of commercial sea salt
(Yang et al. 2015a). A recent study reported the presenceof mainly PET and PP microplastics in all the eight human stool samples considered (Schwabl et al. 2019). The
existing literature shows that microplastic is endangering
our food safety and security as it contaminates the foodmeant for human consumption, but there is a lack ofmore recent studies regarding its direct clinical impacts
on the human body.
The effect of microplastic against the health of organisms was investigated more than three decades ago. The
literature indicates the possibility of microplastic toavoid the clearance mechanism, penetrate human or
mammalian airways and deep lungs, become embedded
or lodged, and induce chronic or acute inflammation(Pauly et al. 1998; Porter et al. 1999; Wright and Kelly2017). An older report described microfibres as toxic topulmonary cells and carcinogenic (Omenn et al. 1986).
Investigations of microplastic in model mammalian systems indicated possible translocation from living cells tohuman organ systems, such as the lymphatic and circulatory systems and, thus, the ability to indirectly impact
the immune system (Brown et al. 2001; Eldridge et al.
1989; Frohlich et al. 2009; Hodges et al. 1995; Jani et al.
1992; Rieux et al. 2005; Volkheimer 1975).
More recently, the health risks of microplastic have also
been reported but are limited to the use of model organisms and relatively focused on the intoxication of organisms by the additives and pollutants leached from themicroplastic than the microplastic itself (Costa et al.
2016). For example, a study analysed the in vitro gastrointestinal uptake of microplastic by using the human intestinal epithelial cell line and co-cultures mimicking
intestinal M-cells and goblet cells, which showed no interference by the microplastic in terms of differentiation andactivation (Stock et al. 2019). In another example, Crcontaminated PLA microplastic in the human digestivesystem was studied using the whole digestive system

2.13 Gaps in microplastic research and future outlook

Microplastic is compromising our food safety because it
pollutes the food meant for human consumption. Nonetheless, research on the impact of microplastic on the internal human body is limited. Moreover, the literature
review revealed the importance of methodology differences in terms of data comparison and validity. For example, a few aspects in the methodology that should becontemplated include pre-incubation or pre-sorption,
depuration, combined co-exposure of a microplastic andpollutant mixture, pollutant-only effect analysis, anddose–response analysis. Furthermore, because of the lackof standardised methods, studies have adopted different

(2021) 8:12

Page 18 of 26

microplastic sampling and analytical methods (Jiang
et al. 2020). The different definitions, sampling methods,
and analytical methods of microplastic could affect thecomparability and consistency of data among different
researchers.
Furthermore, mixed findings from the past literaturesuggest that the effect of microplastic ageing on pollutant sorption capacity depends on the type of pollutant
or microplastic, and the gradual changes in their chemical bonds, forces, or interactions over time. Althoughsome studies have reported the lack of negative effects
from microplastic, other reports on the hazards ofmicroplastic toward the environment should not be ignored. Additionally, questions still exist concerning thebioaccumulation factors of microplastic-bound pollutants in organisms, as internal environments vary fromone organism to another.
The possible future approaches that can alleviate
microplastic pollution include the collection and dissemination of insightful scientific data and facts, public awareness, stakeholder engagement, and theincorporation of environmentally friendly, alternative
polymeric material (Gong et al. 2019; Govindasamy
et al. 2019; Zuo et al. 2019). However, an in-depth investigation is required to confirm the biological, physical, or chemical properties that are responsible forthe sorption capacity of a microplastic with a specificpollutant. Currently, the biofilm presence on microplastic has been reported to be one of the factors thatcan contribute to pollutant sorption by microplastic.
Furthermore, the maximum sorption capacity of amaterial can become a limiting factor of toxicity.
Moreover, a broad comparative or statistical approach
can link the associative patterns of microplastic andpollutants with environmental conditions, such as pH
and salinity. Research in the direction of investigating
the chemical interactions between microplastics, pollutants, and the environment can disclose new indirect factors of pollutant sorption by microplastic.
Additionally, future studies need to focus on the plastic debris that may have higher chemical affinities
than the others. For example, PBAT has a greater
vector effect than traditional materials because of its
higher sorption and desorption capacities as anorganic pollutant. Moreover, instead of that of presorbed microplastic, the potential of unsorbed or lowcontaminated microplastic to be egested in a sorbed
state and carry pollutants out of the gut of organisms
is also worth investigating in future experiments.
Therefore, future microplastic research is expected tomove toward achieving a deeper understanding of thefactors related to pollutant sorption and bioaccumulation by microplastic as well as standardising the protocols involved in microplastic research.

Microplastic pollution has been a long-standing
cause for concern with respect to environmental engineering, ecology, and materials sciences. However,to solve the problems associated with microplastic
pollution, at least accumulatively at a small scale, research efforts toward understanding plastic compositions, characterising plastics, tracing the sources andsinks of plastics, grasping the complex microplastic–
environment interactions, implementing policies,
biotechnological approaches, and infrastructure andtechnology advances are required in combination(Hale et al. 2020; Barceló and Picó 2020; Agamuthu
et al. 2019). This may include ways of reducing plastic waste materials at the source (i.e. recycling andcompostable packaging), reducing microplastic leakage
from waste treatment facilities, or increasing the useof biodegradable or renewable-sourced plastic (Amelia
et al. 2020; Neufeld et al. 2016; Zhang et al. 2020b).
Systematic, innovative research and approaches areneeded to minimise microplastic contamination.

Amelia et al. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science

3 Conclusions
In conclusion, the microplastics commonly found to pollute the marine environment were generally of the fibreor fragment type, contained PE or PP material, and weretypically contributed by anthropogenic, urban, fishery, or
marine activities. The currently known factors of microplastic bioavailability toward organisms are the size,
colour, density, morphology, and mobility of microplastic, as well as the species, morphology, and physiology oforganisms. Additionally, the factors known to affect thepollutant sorption of microplastic are the colour, density,age, and chemical properties of the microplastic, type ofpollutant, biofilm presence, and environmental conditions such as dissolved organic matter, pH, and salinity.
Understanding, providing further evidence, and disseminating the currently known factors of microplastic pollution, bioavailability, sorption, and bioaccumulation will
be constructive and valuable in alleviating the global
microplastic pollution crisis.
Moreover, the sorption, aggregation, ingestion, retention, egestion, reingestion, and release of chemicals
present potential mechanisms for the transport of environmental contaminants (POP, PAH, and EDC), hydrophobic organic compounds, and metals. The literature
review revealed that the chief and direct factor of pollutant sorption by microplastic is chemical interaction. Research in the direction of investigating the chemicalinteractions between microplastics, pollutants, and theenvironment can disclose new indirect factors of pollutant sorption by microplastic. Overall, the clear extent ofpollutants to be accumulated in the food web via thepathway of microplastic as a vector is still inconclusive.
For example, the chemical affinities of the plastics may(2021) 8:12

Page 19 of 26

influence their vector role, and thus, future studies need
to focus on the plastic debris that may have higher
chemical affinities than the others. Numerous diverse
factors, such as the species of organisms and the type ofpollutants, govern the sorption and bioaccumulation (i.e.
desorption) of pollutants in the presence of microplastic.
It is still a research challenge to achieve a clearer andmore comprehensive understanding of the underlying
factors influencing the sorption and bioaccumulation behaviours. Progressive and objective research coupledwith management could determine the future production, consumption, and leakage of plastic debris into theoceans.

Malaysia. 3Ocean Pollution & Ecotoxicology Research Group, Universiti
Malaysia Terengganu, 21030 Kuala Nerus, Terengganu, Malaysia. 4Institute ofMarine Biology, National Taiwan Ocean University, Keelung 20224, Taiwan.
5Center of Excellence for the Oceans, National Taiwan Ocean University,
Keelung 20224, Taiwan. 6Institute of Earth Sciences, College of Ocean Scienceand Resource, National Taiwan Ocean University, Keelung 20224, Taiwan.
7
Center of Excellence for Ocean Engineering, College of Engineering,
National Taiwan Ocean University, Keelung 20224, Taiwan. 8Institute ofMarine Biotechnology, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, 21030 Kuala Nerus,
Terengganu, Malaysia. 9Malaysian Institute of Pharmaceuticals andNutraceuticals, National Institutes of Biotechnology Malaysia, 11700 Penang,
Malaysia.

Amelia et al. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science

Abbreviations
4MBC: 4-Methylbenzylidene camphor; AMX: Amoxicillin; BaP: Benzo[a]pyrene; CBZ: Carbamazepine; CIP: Ciprofloxacin hydrochloride;
EDC: Endocrine-disrupting chemical; EE2: 17α-Ethinylestradiol; EVA: Ethylenevinyl acetate; FTIR: Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy;
HBCD: Hexabromocyclododecane; HCH: Hexachlorocyclohexane; HDPE: Highdensity polyethylene; HeCB: Hexachlorobenzene; LDPE: Low-density
polyethylene; NP: Nonylphenol; PA: Polyamide; PAH: Polycyclic aromatichydrocarbon; PB: Polybutylene; PBAT: Polybutylene adipate terephthalate;
PBDE: Polybrominated diphenyl ether; PCB: Polychlorinated biphenyl;
PE: Polyethylene; PeCB: Pentachlorobenzene; PES: Polyethersulfone;
PET: Polyethylene terephthalate; PFAA: Perfluoroalkyl acids;
PFOS: Perfluorooctanesulfonate; PFOSA: Perfluorooctanesulfonamide;
PMMA: Poly (methyl methacrylate); POP: Persistent organic pollutant;
PP: Polypropylene; PPCP: Pharmaceuticals personal care product;
PS: Polystyrene; PU: Polyurethane; PVA: Polyvinyl acetate; PVC: Polyvinyl
chloride; SBR: Styrene butadiene rubber; SDZ: Sulfadiazine; TC: Tetracycline;
TCS: Triclosan; TMP: Trimethoprim; TYL: Tylosin; USEPA: US Environmental
Protection Agency
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Mr. Arularasu Muthaliar Tamothran and the anonymous
reviewers for their constructive comments to improve the manuscript.
Authors’ contributions
KB proposed the topic, conceived and designed the article. TSMA, YTS,
WMAWMK, and HP carried out the review of literature and writing. MCO
proofread and helped with the interpretation of review of literature. All
authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Authors’ information
TSMA is a graduate student in Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, Malaysia. KB,
MCO, and YTS are her advisors. WMAWMK is a senior lecturer in Universiti
Malaysia Terengganu, Malaysia. HJP is an assistant researcher in Institute ofEarth Sciences, National Taiwan Ocean University, Taiwan.
Funding
Preparation of this review was partially supported by the Postgraduate
Research Grant (PGRG), Universiti Malaysia Terengganu (UMT) (55193/1) andSpecific-Topic Research Projects by the Ministry of Science and Technology(MOST), Taiwan (MOST 109-2621-M-019-001).
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable. Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets
were generated or analysed.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interest.
Author details
1
Faculty of Science and Marine Environment, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu,
21030 Kuala Nerus, Terengganu, Malaysia. 2Microplastic Research Interest
Group, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, 21030 Kuala Nerus, Terengganu,

Received: 11 May 2020 Accepted: 28 December 2020

References
Abbasi S, Soltani N, Keshavarzi B, Moore F, Turner A, Hassanaghaei M (2018)
Microplastics in different tissues of fish and prawn from the Musa estuary,
Persian gulf. Chemosphere 205:80–87
Absorb (2020) Lexico.com Retrieved from https://www.lexico.com/definition/
absorb Accessed on 17 August 2020.
Adsorb (2020) Lexico.com Retrieved from https://www.lexico.com/definition/
adsorb Accessed on 17 August 2020.
Agamuthu P, Mehran SB, Norkhairah A, Norkhairiyah A (2019) Marine debris: areview of impacts and global initiatives. Waste Manag Res 37:987–1002
Akarsu C, Kumbur H, Gökdağ K, Kıdeyş AE, Sanchez-Vidal A (2020) Microplastics
composition and load from three wastewater treatment plants discharging
into Mersin Bay, north eastern Mediterranean Sea. Mar Pollut Bull 150:110776
Aliabad MK, Nassiri M, Kor K (2019) Microplastics in the surface seawaters of
Chabahar Bay, Gulf of Oman (Makran coasts). Mar Pollut Bull 143:125–133
Alimi OS, Budarz JF, Hernandez LM, Tufenkji N (2018) Microplastics andnanoplastics in aquatic environments: aggregation, deposition, andenhanced contaminant transport. Environ Sci Technol 52:1704–1724
Amelia TSM, Govindasamy S, Tamothran AM, Vigneswari S, Bhubalan K (2019)
Applications of PHA in agriculture. In: Kalia VC (ed) Biotechnologicalapplications of polyhydroxyalkanoates. Springer, Singapore, pp 347–361
Amelia TSM, Sukri SNF, Jaapar AN, Md Amin R, Bhubalan K (2020) Uptake andegestion of polyhydroxyalkanoate microbeads in the marine copepod
Nitokra lacustris pacifica. J Sustain Sci Manag 15:45–53
Amin RM, Sohaimi ES, Anuar ST, Bachok Z (2020) Microplastic ingestion byzooplankton in Terengganu coastal waters, southern South China Sea. Mar
Pollut Bull 150:110616
Andrady AL (2011) Microplastics in the marine environment. Mar Pollut Bull 62:
1596–1605
Antunes JC, Frias JGL, Micaelo AC, Sobral P (2013) Resin pellets from beaches of
the Portuguese coast and adsorbed persistent organic pollutants. Estuar
Coast Shelf Sci 130:62–69
Auta HS, Emenike CU, Fauziah SH (2017) Distribution and importance of
microplastics in the marine environment: a review of the sources, fate,effects, and potential solutions. Environ Int 102:165–176
Auta HS, Emenike CU, Jayanthi B, Fauziah SH (2018) Growth kinetics andbiodeterioration of polypropylene microplastics by bacillus sp. andRhodococcus sp. isolated from mangrove sediment. Mar Pollut Bull 127:15–
21
Avio CG, Gorbi S, Regoli F (2017) Plastics and microplastics in the oceans: fromemerging pollutants to emerged threat. Mar Environ Res 128:2–11
Baini M, Fossi MC, Galli M, Caliani I, Campani T, Finoia MG, Panti C (2018)
Abundance and characterization of microplastics in the coastal waters ofTuscany (Italy): the application of the MSFD monitoring protocol in the
Mediterranean Sea. Mar Pollut Bull 133:543–552
Bakir A, O'Connor IA, Rowland SJ, Hendriks AJ, Thompson RC (2016) Relative
importance of microplastics as a pathway for the transfer of hydrophobicorganic chemicals to marine life. Environ Pollut 219:56–65
Bakir A, Rowland SJ, Thompson RC (2012) Competitive sorption of persistentorganic pollutants onto microplastics in the marine environment. Mar Pollut
Bull 64:2782–2789
Bakir A, Rowland SJ, Thompson RC (2014) Transport of persistent organic
pollutants by microplastics in estuarine conditions. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 140:
14–21

(2021) 8:12

Page 20 of 26

Baldwin BS (1995) Selective particle ingestion by oyster larvae (Crassostrea
virginica) feeding on natural seston and cultured algae. Mar Biol 123:95–107
Barboza LGA, Vethaak AD, Lavorante BR, Lundebye AK, Guilhermino L (2018a)
Marine microplastic debris: an emerging issue for food security, food safety
and human health. Mar Pollut Bull 133:336348
Barboza LGA, Vieira LR, Branco V, Carvalho C, Guilhermino L (2018b) Microplastics
increase mercury bioconcentration in gills and bioaccumulation in the liver,and cause oxidative stress and damage in Dicentrarchus labrax juveniles. Sci
Rep 8:15655
Barboza LGA, Vieira LR, Branco V, Figueiredo N, Carvalho F, Carvalho C,
Guilhermino L (2018c) Microplastics cause neurotoxicity, oxidative damageand energy-related changes and interact with the bioaccumulation of
mercury in the European seabass, Dicentrarchus labrax (Linnaeus 1758).
Aquat Toxicol 195:49–57
Barceló D, Picó Y (2020) Case studies of macro- and microplastics pollution incoastal waters and rivers: is there a solution with new removal technologies
and policy actions? Case studies in chemical and environmental engineering,
p 100019
Batel A, Linti F, Scherer M, Erdinger L, Braunbeck T (2016) Transfer ofbenzo a pyrene from microplastics to Artemia nauplii and further tozebrafish via a trophic food web experiment: CYP1A induction andvisual tracking of persistent organic pollutants. Environ Toxicol Chem
35:1656–1666
Belzagui F, Crespi M, Álvarez A, Gutiérrez-Bouzán C, Vilaseca M (2019)
Microplastics’ emissions: microfibers’ detachment from textile garments.
Environ Pollut 248:1028–1035
Besseling E, Foekema EM, Van Den Heuvel-Greve MJ, Koelmans AA (2017) The
effect of microplastic on the uptake of chemicals by the lugworm Arenicola
marina (L.) under environmentally relevant exposure conditions. Environ Sci
Technol 51:8795–8804
Besseling E, Foekema EM, Van Franeker JA, Leopold MF, Kühn S, Rebolledo ELB,
Heße E, Mielke L, IJzer J, Kamminga P, Koelmans AA (2015) Microplastic in amacro filter feeder: humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae. Mar Pollut Bull
95:248–252
Besseling E, Quik JTK, Sun M, Koelmans AA (2016) Fate of nano- and microplastic
in freshwater systems: a modeling study. Environ Pollut 220:540
Besseling E, Wegner A, Foekema EM, van den Heuvel-Geve MJ, Koelmans AA(2013) Effects of microplastic on fitness and PCB bioaccumulation by the
lugworm Arenicola marina (L.). Environ Sci Technol 47:593–600
Betts K (2008) Why small plastic particles may pose a big problem in the oceans.
ACS Publications
Boerger CM, Lattin GL, Moore SL, Moore CJ (2010) Plastic ingestion byplanktivorous fishes in the North Pacific central gyre. Mar Pollut Bull 60:2275–
2278
Bolto B, Xie Z (2019) The use of polymers in the flotation treatment ofwastewater. Processes 7:374
Botterell ZL, Beaumont N, Dorrington T, Steinke M, Thompson RC, Lindeque PK(2019) Bioavailability and effects of microplastics on marine zooplankton: areview. Environ Pollut 245:98–110
Brandon AM, Gao SH, Tian R, Ning D, Yang SS, Zhou J, Wu WM, Criddle CS (2018)
Biodegradation of polyethylene and plastic mixtures in mealworms (larvae of
Tenebrio molitor) and effects on the gut microbiome. Environ Sci Technol 52:
6526–6533
Brennecke D, Duarte B, Paiva F, Cacador I, Canning-Clode J (2016) Microplastics
as vector for heavy metal contamination from the marine environment.
Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 178:189–195
Brown DM, Wilson MR, MacNee W, Stone V, Donaldson K (2001) Size-dependent
proinflammatory effects of ultrafine polystyrene particles: a role for surface
area and oxidative stress in the enhanced activity of ultrafines. Toxicol Appl
Pharmacol 175:191–199
Browne MA, Niven SJ, Galloway TS, Rowland SJ, Thompson RC (2013)
Microplastic moves pollutants and additives to worms, reducing functions
linked to health and biodiversity. Curr Biol 23:2388–2392
Camins E, Haan WP, Salvo VS, Canals M, Raffard A, Sanchez-Vidal A (2020) Paddle
surfing for science on microplastic pollution. Sci Total Environ 709:136178
Caruso G (2019) Microplastics as vectors of contaminants. Mar Pollut Bull 146:
921–924
Castillo A, Al-Maslamani I, Obbard JP (2016) Prevalence of microplastics in themarine waters of Qatar’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ). MICRO 2016. Fateand impact of microplastics in marine ecosystems, p 112

Chen M, Jin M, Tao P, Wang Z, Xie W, Yu X, Wang K (2018) Assessment of
microplastics derived from mariculture in Xiangshan Bay, China. Environ
Pollut 242:1146–1156
Cheung LTO, Lui CY, Fok L (2018) Microplastic contamination of wild and captive
flathead grey mullet (Mugil cephalus). Int J Environ Res Public Health 15:597
Chua EM, Shimeta J, Nugegoda D, Morrison PD, Clarke BO (2014) Assimilation of
polybrominated diphenyl ethers from microplastics by the marine
amphipod, Allorchestes compressa. Environ Sci Technol 48:8127–8134
Clark JR, Cole M, Lindeque PK, Fileman E, Blackford J, Lewis C, Lenton TM,
Galloway TS (2016) Marine microplastic debris: a targeted plan forunderstanding and quantifying interactions with marine life. Front Ecol
Environ 14:317–324
Coffin S, Huang GY, Lee I, Schlenk D (2019) Fish and seabird gut conditions
enhance desorption of estrogenic chemicals from commonly-ingested
plastic items. Environ Sci Technol 53:4588–4599
Cole M, Lindeque P, Halsband C, Galloway TS (2011) Microplastics as
contaminants in the marine environment: a review. Mar Pollut Bull 62:2588–
2597
Cole M, Lindeque PK, Fileman E, Clark J, Lewis C, Halsband C, Galloway TS (2016)
Microplastics alter the properties and sinking rates of zooplankton faecal
pellets. Environ Sci Technol 50:3239–3246
Conley K, Clum A, Deepe J, Lane H, Beckingham B (2019) Wastewater treatment
plants as a source of microplastics to an urban estuary: removal efficiencies
and loading per capita over one year. Water Research X 3:100030
Cordova MR, Purwiyanto AIS, Suteja Y (2019) Abundance and characteristics of
microplastics in the northern coastal waters of Surabaya, Indonesia. Mar
Pollut Bull 142:183–188
Corradini F, Meza P, Eguiluz R, Casado F, Huerta-Lwanga E, Geissen V (2019)
Evidence of microplastic accumulation in agricultural soils from sewage
sludge disposal. Sci Total Environ 671:411–420
Costa JP, Santos PSM, Duarte AC, Rocha-Santos T (2016) (Nano) plastics in theenvironment – sources, fates and effects. Sci Total Environ 566-567:15–26
Courtene-Jones W, Quinn B, Gary SF, Mogg AOM, Narayanaswamy BE (2017)
Microplastic pollution identified in deep-sea water and ingested by benthic
invertebrates in the Rockall trough, North Atlantic Ocean. Environ Pollut 231:
271–280
Dai Z, Zhang H, Zhou Q, Tian Y, Chen T, Tu C, Fu C, Luo Y (2018) Occurrence of
microplastics in the water column and sediment in an inland sea affected byintensive anthropogenic activities. Environ Pollut 242:1557–1565
Davarpanah E, Guilhermino L (2015) Single and combined effects of microplastics
and copper on the population growth of the marine microalgae Tetraselmis
chuii. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 167:269–275
Dawson A, Huston W, Kawaguchi S, King C, Cropp R, Wild S, Eisenmann P,
Townsend K, Nash SB (2018) Uptake and depuration kinetics influence
microplastic bioaccumulation and toxicity in Antarctic krill Euphausia superba.
Environ Sci Technol 52:3195–3201
Devi R, Rajesh Kannan V, Nivas D, Kannan K, Chandru S, Robert Antony A (2015)
Biodegradation of HDPE by Aspergillus spp. from marine ecosystem of gulfof Mannar, India. Mar Pollut Bull 96:32–40
Duis K, Coors A (2016) Microplastics in the aquatic and terrestrial environment:
sources (with a specific focus on personal care products), fate and effects.
Environ Sci Eur 28:2
Eldridge JH, Meulbroek JA, Staas JK, Tice TR, Gilley RM (1989) Vaccine-containing
biodegradable microspheres specifically enter the gut-associated lymphoidtissue following oral administration and induce a disseminated mucosal
immune response. In: Atassi MZ (ed) Immunobiology of proteins andpeptides V: vaccines mechanisms, design, and applications. Springer, pp
191–202
Enders K, Lenz R, Stedmon CA, Nielsen TG (2015) Abundance, size and polymer
composition of marine microplastics ≥ 10 μm in the Atlantic Ocean andtheir modelled vertical distribution. Mar Pollut Bull 100:70–81
Endo S, Grathwohl P, Schmidt TC (2008) Absorption or adsorption? Insights frommolecular probes n-alkanes and cycloalkanes into modes of sorption byenvironmental solid matrices. Environ Sci Technol 42:3989–3995
Farrell P, Nelson K (2013) Trophic level transfer of microplastic: Mytilus edulis (L.)
to Carcinus maenas (L.). Environ Pollut 177:1–3
Ferreira M, Thompson J, Paris A, Rohindra D, Rico C (2020) Presence of
microplastics in water, sediments and fish species in an urban coastal
environment of Fiji, a Pacific small island developing state. Mar Pollut Bull
153:110991

Amelia et al. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science(2021) 8:12

Page 21 of 26

Fisner M, Majer A, Taniguchi S, Bícego M, Turra A, Gorman D (2017) Color
spectrum and resin-type determine the concentration and composition ofpolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in plastic pellets. Mar Pollut Bull
122:323–330
Fotopoulou KN, Karapanagioti HK (2012) Surface properties of beached plasticpellets. Mar Environ Res 81:70–77
Frias JP, Antunes JC, Sobral P (2013) Local marine litter survey - a case study in
Alcobaça municipality, Portugal. J Integrated Coast Zone Manag 13:169–179
Fries E, Zarfl C (2012) Sorption of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) to low
and high density polyethylene (PE). Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 19:1296–1304
Frohlich E, Samberger C, Kueznik T, Absenger M, Roblegg E, Zimmer A, Pieber TR(2009) Cytotoxicity of nanoparticles independent from oxidative stress. J
Toxicol Sci 34:363–375
Frydkjaer CK, Iversen N, Roslev P (2017) Ingestion and egestion of microplastics
by the Cladoceran daphniamagna: effects of regular and irregular shaped
plastic and sorbed phenanthrene. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 99:655–661
Galgani F, Hanke G, Maes T (2015) Global distribution, composition andabundance of marine litter. In: Bergmann M, Gutow L, Klages M (eds) Marine
anthropogenic litter. Springer, Cham, pp 29–56
Galloway (2015) Micro- and nano-plastics and human health. In: Bergmann M, Gutow
L, Klages M (eds) Marine anthropogenic litter. Springer, Cham, pp 343–366
Gambardella C, Morgana S, Ferrando S, Bramini M, Piazza V, Costa E, Garaventa F,
Faimali M (2017) Effects of polystyrene microbeads in marine planktonic
crustaceans. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 145:250–257
Gassel M, Rochman CM (2019) The complex issue of chemicals and microplastic
pollution: a case study in North Pacific lanternfish. Environ Pollut 248:1000–1009
Gieré R, Sommer F, Dietze V, Baum A, Gilge S, Sauer J, Maschowski C (2018) Tirewear particles as a major component of microplastics in the environment.
Geol Soc Am 50
Gong W, Jiang M, Han P, Liang G, Zhang T, Liu G (2019) Comparative analysis on
the sorption kinetics and isotherms of fipronil on nondegradable andbiodegradable microplastics. Environ Pollut 254:112927
Göpferich A (1995) Mechanisms of polymer degradation and erosion.
Biomaterials 17:103
Gouin T, Roche N, Lohmann R, Hodges G (2011) A thermodynamic approach forassessing the environmental exposure of chemicals absorbed to microplastic.
Environ Sci Technol 45:1466–1472
Govindasamy S, Syafiq IM, Amirul AAA, Amin RM, Bhubalan K (2019) Dataset oncontrolled production of polyhydroxyalkanoate-based microbead using
double emulsion solvent evaporation technique. Data Brief 23:103675
Greven AC, Merk T, Karagöz F, Mohr K, Klapper M, Jovanović B, Palić D (2016)
Polycarbonate and polystyrene nanoplastic particles act as stressors to theinnate immune system of fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas). Environ
Toxicol Chem 35:3093–3310
Gündoğdu S, Çevik C, Güzel E, Kilercioğlu S (2018) Microplastics in municipal
wastewater treatment plants in Turkey: a comparison of the influent andsecondary effluent concentrations. Environ Monit Assess 190:626
Guo J, Huang X, Xiang L, Wang Y, Li Y, Li H, Cai Q, Mo C, Wong M (2020) Source,
migration and toxicology of microplastics in soil. Environ Int 137:105263
Guo X, Wang X, Zhou X, Kong X, Tao S, Xing B (2012) Sorption of fourhydrophobic organic compounds by three chemically distinct polymers: roleof chemical and physical composition. Environ Sci Technol 46:7252–7259
Guo XT, Pang JW, Chen SY, Jia HZ (2018) Sorption properties of tylosin on four
different microplastics. Chemosphere 209:240–245
Guzzetti E, Sureda A, Tejada S, Faggio C (2018) Microplastic in marine organism:
environmental and toxicological effects. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 64:164–171
Haghi BN, Banaee M (2017) Effects of micro-plastic particles on paraquat toxicity
to common carp (Cyprinus carpio): biochemical changes. Int J Environ Sci
Technol 14:521–530
Hale RC, Seeley ME, La Guardia MJ, Mai L, Zeng EY (2020) A global perspectiveon microplastics. J Geophys Res Oceans 125:e2018JC014719
Hartmann NB, Rist S, Bodin J, Jensen LH, Schmidt SN, Mayer P, Meibom A, Baun
A (2017) Microplastics as vectors for environmental contaminants: exploring
sorption, desorption, and transfer to biota. Integr Environ Assess Manag 13:
488–493
He P, Chen L, Shao L, Zhang H, Lü F (2019) Municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill:a source of microplastics? -evidence of microplastics in landfill leachate.
Water Res 159:38–45
Hernandez E, Nowack B, Mitrano DM (2017) Polyester textiles as a source of
microplastics from households: a mechanistic study to understand microfiber
release during washing. Environ Sci Technol 51:7036–7046

Herzke D, Anker-Nilssen T, Nøst TH, Götsch A, Christensen-Dalsgaard S, Langset M
et al (2016) Negligible impact of ingested microplastics on tissue
concentrations of persistent organic pollutants in northern fulmars offcoastal Norway. Environ Sci Technol 50:1924–1933
Hodges GM, Carr EA, Hazzard RA, Carr KE (1995) Uptake and translocation of
microparticles in small intestine. Morphology and quantification of particle
distribution. Dig Dis Sci 40:967–975
Holmes LA, Turner A, Thompson RC (2012) Adsorption of trace metals to plastic
resin pellets in the marine environment. Environ Pollut 160:42–48
Holmes LA, Turner A, Thompson RC (2014) Interactions between trace metals andplastic production pellets under estuarine conditions. Mar Chem 167:25–32
Horton A, Walton A, Spurgeon DJ, Lahive E, Svendsen C (2017) Microplastics infreshwater and terrestrial environments: evaluating the current
understanding to identify the knowledge gaps and future research priorities.
Sci Total Environ 586:127–141
Horton AA, Svendsen C, Williams RJ, Spurgeon DJ, Lahive E (2016) Large
microplastic particles in sediments of tributaries of the river Thames, UK abundance, sources and methods for effective quantification. Mar Pollut Bull
114:218–226
Howell EA, Bograd SJ, Morishige C, Seki MP, Polovina JJ (2012) On North Pacificcirculation and associated marine debris concentration. Mar Pollut Bull 65:
16–22
Hu JQ, Yang SZ, Guo L, Xu X, Yao T, Xie F (2017) Microscopic investigation on theadsorption of lubrication oil on microplastics. J Mol Liq 227:351–355
Hu Y, Gong M, Wang J, Bassi A (2019) Current research trends on microplastic
pollution from wastewater systems: a critical review. Rev Environ Sci
Biotechnol 18:207–230
Huffer T, Hofmann T (2016) Sorption of non-polar organic compounds by microsized plastic particles in aqueous solution. Environ Pollut 214:194–201
Huffer T, Weniger AK, Hofmann T (2018) Sorption of organic compounds byaged polystyrene microplastic particles. Environ Pollut 236:218–225
Hwang J, Choi D, Han S, Jung SY, Choi J, Hong J (2020) Potential toxicity ofpolystyrene microplastic particles. Sci Rep 10:7391
Ivleva NP, Wiesheu AC, Niessner R (2017) Microplastic in aquatic ecosystems.
Angew Chem Int Ed 56:1720–1739
Jabeen K, Li B, Chen Q, Su L, Wu C, Hollert H, Shi H (2018) Effects of virginmicroplastics on goldfish (Carassius auratus). Chemosphere 213:323–332
Jambeck JR, Geyer R, Wilcox C, Siegler TR, Perryman M, Andrady A, Narayan R,
Law KL (2015) Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 347:
768–771
Jang M, Shim WJ, Han GM, Rani M, Song YK, Hong SH (2016) Styrofoam debris asa source of hazardous additives for marine organisms. Environ Sci Technol
50:4951–4960
Jani PU, McCarthy DE, Florence AT (1992) Nanosphere and microsphere uptake
via Peyer’s patches: observation of the rate of uptake in the rat after a single
oral dose. Int J Pharm 86:239–246
Jeong CB, Won EJ, Kang HM, Lee MC, Hwang DS, Hwang UK, Zhou B, Souissi S,
Lee SJ, Lee JS (2016) Microplastic size-dependent toxicity, oxidative stressinduction, and p-JNK and p-p38 activation in the monogonont rotifer(Brachionus koreanus). Environ Sci Technol 50:8849–8857
Jiang Y, Yang F, Zhao Y, Wang J (2020) Greenland Sea gyre increases microplastic
pollution in the surface waters of the Nordic seas. Sci Total Environ 712:136484
Jovanovic B (2017) Ingestion of microplastics by fish and its potential
consequences from a physical perspective. Integr Environ Assess Manag 13:
510–515
Jun Y, Yu Y, Wei-Min W, Jiao Z, Lei J (2014) Evidence of PE biodegradation bybacterial strains frothe guts of plastic-eating waxworms. Environ Sci Technol
48:13776–13784
Kanhai LDK, Gårdfeldt K, Lyashevska O, Hassellöv M (2018) Microplastics in subsurface waters of the Arctic Central Basin. Mar Pollut Bull 130:8–18
Karapanagioti HK, Klontza I (2008) Testing phenanthrene distribution propertiesof virgin plastic pellets and plastic eroded pellets found on Lesvos island
beaches (Greece). Mar Environ Res 65:283–290
Katsnelson A (2015) News feature: microplastics present pollution puzzle. PNAS
112:5547–5549
Kazour M, Jemaa S, Issa C, Khalaf G, Amara R (2019) Microplastics pollution along
the Lebanese coast (eastern Mediterranean Basin): occurrence in surface
water, sediments and biota samples. Sci Total Environ 696:133933
Kedzierski M, D'Almeida M, Magueresse A, Le Grand A, Duval H, Cesar G, Sire O,
Bruzaud S, Tilly VL (2018) Threat of plastic ageing in marine environment.
Adsorption/desorption of micropollutants. Mar Pollut Bull 127:684–694

Amelia et al. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science(2021) 8:12

Page 22 of 26

Khalik WMAWM, Ibrahim YS, Anuar ST, Govindasamy S, Baharuddin NF (2018)
Microplastics analysis in Malaysian marine waters: a field study of Kuala Nerus
and Kuantan. Mar Pollut Bull 135:451–457
Khan FR, Boyle D, Chang E, Bury NR (2017) Do PE microplastic beads alter theintestinal uptake of Ag in rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss? Analysis of the
microplastics vector effect using in vitro gut sacs. Environ Pollut 231:200–206
Khan FR, Syberg K, Shashoua Y, Bury NR (2015) Influence of PE microplastic beads
on the uptake and localization of silver in zebrafish (Danio rerio). Environ
Pollut 206:73–79
Kim D, Chae Y, An YJ (2017a) Mixture toxicity of nickel and microplastics withdifferent functional groups on Daphnia magna. Environ Sci Technol 51:
12852–12858
Kim MY, Kim C, Moon J, Heo J, Jung SP, Kim JR (2017b) Polymer film-based
screening and isolation of polylactic acid (PLA)-degrading microorganisms. J
Microbiol Biotechnol 27:342–349
Kleinteich J, Seidensticker S, Marggrander N, Zarfl C (2018) Microplastics reduce
short-term effects of environmental contaminants. Part ii: PE particles
decrease the effect of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons on microorganisms.
Int J Environ Res Public Health 15:E287
Koelmans AA, Bakir A, Burton GA, Janssen CR (2016) Microplastic as a vector forchemicals in the aquatic environment: critical review and model-supported
reinterpretation of empirical studies. Environ Sci Technol 50:3315–3326
Koelmans AA, Besseling E, Foekema EM (2014) Leaching of plastic additives tomarine organisms. Environ Pollut 187:49–54
Koelmans AA, Besseling E, Wegner A, Foekema EM (2013) Plastic as a carrier of POPs
to aquatic organisms: a model analysis. Environ Sci Technol 47:7812–7820
Koelmans AA, Brendo M, Thijs M, Jonker MTO (2009) Attenuation ofpolychlorinated biphenyl sorption to charcoal by humic acids. Environ Sci
Technol 43:736–742
Kokalj AJ, Kunej U, Skalar T (2018) Screening study of four environmentally
relevant microplastic pollutants: uptake and effects on Daphnia magna andArtemia franciscana. Chemosphere 208:522–529
Kole PJ, Löhr AJ, Van Belleghem F, Ragas A (2017) Wear and tear of tyres: astealthy source of microplastics in the environment. Int J Environ Res Public
Health 14:1265
Koongolla JB, Andrady AL, Kumara PTP, Gangabadage CS (2018) Evidence of
microplastics pollution in coastal beaches and waters in southern Sri Lanka.
Mar Pollut Bull 137:277–284
Kwon JH, Chang S, Hong SH, Shim WJ (2017) Microplastics as a vector ofhydrophobic contaminants: importance of hydrophobic additives. Integr
Environ Assess Manag 13:494–499
Lambert S, Sinclair C, Boxall A (2014) Occurrence, degradation, and effect ofpolymer-based materials in the environment. In: Whitacre DM (ed) Reviewsof environmental contamination and toxicology 227. Springer, Switzerland
Lambert S, Sinclair CJ, Bradley EL, Boxall A (2013) Effects of environmental
conditions on latex degradation in aquatic systems. Sci Total Environ 447:
225–234
Law KL, Morét-Ferguson S, Maximenko NA, Proskurowski G, Peacock EE, Hafner J,
Reddy CM (2010) Plastic accumulation in the North Atlantic subtropical gyre.
Science 329:1185–1188
Lebreton L, Andrady A (2019) Future scenarios of global plastic waste generationand disposal. Palgrave Commun 5:6
Lee H, Lee HJ, Kwon JH (2019) Estimating microplastic-bound intake ofhydrophobic organic chemicals by fish using measured desorption rates to
artificial gut fluid. Sci Total Environ 651:162–170
Lei L, Wu S, Lu S, Liu M, Song Y, Fu Z, Shi H, Raley-Susman KM, He D (2018)
Microplastic particles cause intestinal damage and other adverse effects inzebrafish Danio rerio and nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Sci Total Environ
619:1–8
Leroueil PR, Berry SA, Duthie K, Han G, Rotello VM, McNerny DQ, Baker JR Jr, Orr
BG, Holl MM (2008) Wide varieties of cationic nanoparticles induce defects insupported lipid bilayers. Nano Lett 8:420–424
Li J, Zhang K, Zhang H (2018b) Adsorption of antibiotics on microplastics.
Environ Pollut 237:460–467
Li X, Chen L, Mei Q, Dong B, Dai X, Ding G, Zeng EY (2018a) Microplastics insewage sludge from the wastewater treatment plants in China. Water Res
142:75–85
Li Y, Zhang H, Tang C (2020) A review of possible pathways of marine
microplastics transport in the ocean. Anthropocene Coasts 3:6–13
Liao Y, Yang J (2020) Microplastic serves as a potential vector for Cr in an in-vitro
human digestive model. Sci Total Environ 703:134805

Lin W, Jiang R, Xiong Y, Wu J, Xu J, Zheng J, Zhu F, Ouyang G (2019)
Quantification of the combined toxic effect of polychlorinated biphenyls
and nano-sized polystyrene on Daphnia magna. J Hazard Mater 364:531–
536
Liu G, Zhu Z, Yang Y, Sun Y, Yu F, Ma J (2018) Sorption behavior and mechanismof hydrophilic organic chemicals to virgin and aged microplastics infreshwater and seawater. Environ Pollut 246:26–33
Liu J, Zhang T, Tian L, Liu X, Qi Z, Ma Y, Ji R, Chen W (2019a) Aging significantly
affects mobility and contaminant-mobilizing ability of nanoplastics insaturated loamy sand. Environ Sci Technol 53:5805–5815
Liu K, Wang XH, Fang T, Xu P, Zhu LX, Li DJ (2019b) Source and potential risk
assessment of suspended atmospheric microplastics in Shanghai. Sci Total
Environ 675:462–471
Liu L, Fokkink R, Koelmans AA (2016) Sorption of polycyclic aromatichydrocarbons to polystyrene nanoplastic. Environ Toxicol Chem 35:1650–
1655
Liu X, Shi H, Xie B, Dionysiou DD, Zhao Y (2019c) Microplastics as both a sink anda source of Bisphenol a in the marine environment. Environ Sci Technol 5:10188–10196
Liu X, Xu J, Zhao Y, Shi H, Huang CH (2019d) Hydrophobic sorption
behaviors of 17beta-estradiol on environmental microplastics.
Chemosphere 226:726–735
Llorca M, Schirinzi G, Martínez M, Barceló D, Farré M (2018) Adsorption of
perfluoroalkyl substances on microplastics under environmental conditions.
Environ Pollut 235:680–691
Lohmann R (2017) Microplastics are not important for the cycling andbioaccumulation of organic pollutants in the oceans-but should
microplastics be considered POPs themselves? Integr Environ Assess Manag
13:460–465
Lu Y, Zhang Y, Deng Y, Jiang W, Zhao Y, Geng J, Ding L, Ren H (2016) Uptake
and accumulation of polystyrene microplastics in zebrafish (Danio rerio) andtoxic effects in liver. Environ Sci Technol 50:4054–4060
Lusher A, Milian GH, O’Brien J, Berrow S, O’Connor I, Officer R (2015) Microplastic
and macroplastic ingestion by a deep diving, oceanic cetacean: the True’s
beaked whale Mesoplodon Mirus. Environ Pollut 199:85–191
Lusher AL, McHugh M, Thompson RC (2013) Occurrence of microplastics in thegastrointestinal tract of pelagic and demersal fish from the English Channel.
Mar Pollut Bull 67:94–99
Lwanga E, Thapa B, Yang X, Gertsen H, Salanki T, Geissen V, Garbeva P (2018)
Decay of low-density polyethylene by bacteria extracted from earthworm’s
guts: a potential for soil restoration. Sci Total Environ 624:753–757
Ma H, Pu S, Liu S, Bai Y, Mandal S, Xing B (2020a) Microplastics in aquatic
environments: toxicity to trigger ecological consequences. Environ Pollut
261:114089
Ma J, Ma Y, Yu F, Dai X (2018) Rotating magnetic field-assisted adsorption
mechanism of pollutants on mechanically strong sodium alginate/graphene/
L-cysteine beads in batch and fixed-bed column systems. Environ Sci
Technol 52:13925–13934
Ma J, Sun Y, Zhang M, Yang M, Gong X, Yu F, Zheng J (2017)
Comparative study of graphene hydrogels and aerogels reveals theimportant role of buriedwater in pollutant adsorption. Environ Sci
Technol 51:12283–12292
Ma Y, Huang A, Cao S, Sun F, Wang L, Guo H, Ji R (2016) Effects of nanoplastics
and microplastics on toxicity, bioaccumulation, and environmental fate ofphenanthrene in fresh water. Environ Pollut 219:166–173
Ma ZF, Ibrahim YS, Lee YY (2020b) Microplastic pollution and health andrelevance to the Malaysia’s roadmap to zero single-use plastics 2018–2030.
Malays J Med Sci 27:1–6
Magara G, Elia AC, Syberg K, Khan FR (2018) Single contaminant and combined
exposures of PE microplastics and fluoranthene: accumulation and oxidative
stress response in the blue mussel, Mytilus edulis. J Toxicol Environ Health A
81:1–13
Martin OV, Voulvoulis N (2009) Sustainable risk management of emerging
contaminants in municipal wastewaters. Philos Trans Royal Soc A Math PhysEng Sci 367:3895–3922
Mata MT, Luza MF, Riquelme CE (2017) Production of diatom-bacteria biofilm
isolated from Seriola lalandi cultures for aquaculture application. Aquac Res
48:4308–4320
Mato Y, Isobe T, Takada H, Kanehiro H, Ohtake C, Kaminuma T (2001) Plastic resin
pellets as a transport medium for toxic chemicals in the marine
environment. Environ Sci Technol 35:318–324

Amelia et al. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science(2021) 8:12

Page 23 of 26

Mattsson K, Ekvall MT, Hansson LA, Linse S, Malmendal A, Cedervall T (2014)
Altered behavior, physiology, and metabolism in fish exposed to polystyrene
nanoparticles. Environ Sci Technol 49:553–561
Maximenko N, Hafner J, Niier P (2012) Pathways of marine debris derived fromtrajectories of Lagrangian drifters. Mar Pollut Bull 65:51–62
Mazurais D, Ernande B, Quazuguel P, Severe A, Huelvan C, Madec L, Mouchel O,
Soudant P, Robbens J, Huvet A, Zambonino-Infante J (2015) Evaluation of the
impact of PE microbeads ingestion in European sea bass (Dicentrarchus
labrax) larvae. Mar Environ Res 112:78–85
McEachern K, Alegria H, Kalagher AL, Hansen C, Morrison S, Hastings D (2019)
Microplastics in Tampa Bay, Florida: abundance and variability in estuarine
waters and sediments. Mar Pollut Bull 148:97–106
Mohan AJ, Sekhar VC, Bhaskar T, Nampoothiri KM (2016) Microbial assisted highimpact polystyrene (HIPS) degradation. Bioresour Technol 213:204–207
Moura V, Ribeiro I, Moriggi P, Capao A, Salles C, Bitati S, Procopio L (2018) The
influence of surface microbial diversity and succession on microbiologically
influenced corrosion of steel in a simulated marine environment. Arch
Microbiol 200:1447–1456
Munier B, Bendell LI (2018) Macro and micro plastics sorb and desorb metals andact as a point source of trace metals to coastal ecosystems. PLoS One 13:
e0191759
Naidu SA, Ranga Rao V, Ramu K (2018) Microplastics in the benthic invertebrates
from the coastal waters of Kochi, southeastern Arabian Sea. Environ
Geochem Health 40:1377–1383
Nakki P, Setala O, Lehtiniemi M (2017) Bioturbation transports secondary
microplastics to deeper layers in soft marine sediments of the northern Baltic
Sea. Mar Pollut Bull 119:255–261
Nel HA, Froneman PW (2015) A quantitative analysis of microplastic pollution along
the south-eastern coastline of South Africa. Mar Pollut Bull 101:274–279
Nelms SE, Galloway TS, Godley BJ, Jarvis DS, Lindeque PK (2018) Investigating
microplastic trophic transfer in marine top predators. Environ Pollut 238:999–
1007
Neufeld L, Stassen F, Sheppard R, Gilman T (2016) The new plastics economy —rethinking the future of plastics. World economic forum, Ellen MacArthur
Foundation, McKinsey & Company http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.
org/publications
Ngo PL, Pramanik BK, Shah K, Roychand R (2019) Pathway, classification andremoval efficiency of microplastics in wastewater treatment plants. Environ
Pollut 255:113326
Nie H, Wang J, Xu K, Huang Y, Yan M (2019) Microplastic pollution in water andfish samples around Nanxun reef in Nansha Islands, South China Sea. Sci
Total Environ 696:134022
Nor NHM, Koelmans AA (2019) Transfer of PCBs from microplastics undersimulated gut fluid conditions is biphasic and reversible. Environ Sci Technol
53(4):1874–1883
Obbard RW (2018) Microplastics in polar regions: the role of long range
transport. Curr Opin Environ Sci Health 1:24–29
Oberbeckmann S, Kreikemeyer B, Labrenz M (2018) Environmental factors
support the formation of specific bacterial assemblages on microplastics.
Front Microbiol 8:2709
Oberbeckmann S, Labrenz M (2020) Marine microbial assemblages on
microplastics: diversity, adaptation, and role in degradation. Annu Rev Mar
Sci 12:209–232
O'Donovan S, Mestre NC, Abel S, Fonseca TG, Carteny CC, Cormier B, Keiter
SH, Bebianno MJ (2018) Ecotoxicological effects of chemical
contaminants adsorbed to microplastics in the clam Scrobicularia plana.
Front Mar Sci 5:143
Ogonowski M, Wenman V, Danielsson S, Gorokhova E (2017) Ingested
microplastic is not correlated to HOC concentrations in Baltic Sea herring.
CEST [internet]. Rhodes, Greece
Oliveira M, Ribeiro A, Hylland K, Guilhermino L (2013) Single and combined
effects of microplastics and pyrene on juveniles (0+ group) of thecommon goby Pomatoschistus microps (Teleostei Gobiidae). Ecol Indic
34:641–647
Omenn GS, Merchant J, Boatman E, Dement JM, Kuschner M, Nicholson W, PetoJ, Rosenstock L (1986) Contribution of environmental fibers to respiratory
cancer. Environ Health Perspect 70:51–56
Ory NC, Sobral P, Ferreira JL, Thiel M (2017) Amberstripe scad Decapterus
muroadsi (Carangidae) fish ingest blue microplastics resembling their
copepod prey along the coast of Rapa Nui (Easter Island) in the South Pacificsubtropical gyre. Sci Total Environ 586:430–437

Paco A, Duarte K, da Costa JP, Santos PSM, Pereira R, Pereira ME, Freitas AC,
Duarte AC, Rocha-Santos TAP (2017) Biodegradation of polyethylene
microplastics by the marine fungus Zalerion maritimum. Sci Total Environ
586:10–15
Park SY, Kim CG (2019) Biodegradation of micro-polyethylene particles bybacterial colonization of a mixed microbial consortium isolated from alandfill site. Chemosphere 222:527–533
Pascall MA, Zabik ME, Zabik MJ, Hernandez RJ (2005) Uptake of polychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCBs) from an aqueous medium by PE, PVC, and polystyrene
films. J Agric Food Chem 53:164
Paul-Pont I, Lacroix C, Fernandez GC, Hegaret H, Lambert C, Le Goïc N, Frere L,
Cassone AL, Sussarellu R, Fabioux C, Guyomarch J, Albentosa M, Huvet A,
Soudant P (2016) Exposure of marine mussels Mytilus spp. to polystyrene
microplastics: toxicity and influence on fluoranthene bioaccumulation.
Environ Pollut 216:724–737
Pauly JL, Stegmeier SJ, Allaart HA, Cheney RT, Zhang PJ, Mayer AG, Streck RJ(1998) Inhaled cellulosic and plastic fibers found in human lung tissue.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 7:419–428
Peda C, Caccamo L, Fossi MC, Gai F, Andaloro F, Genovese L, Perdichizzi A,
Romeo T, Maricchiolo G (2016) Intestinal alterations in European sea bass
Dicentrarchus labrax (Linnaeus 1758) exposed to microplastics: preliminary
results. Environ Pollut 212:251–256
Peters CA, Thomas PA, Rieper KB, Bratton SP (2017) Foraging preferences
influence microplastic ingestion by six marine fish species from the Texas
Gulf Coast. Mar Pollut Bull 124:82–88
PlasticsEurope (2017) Plastics – the facts 2017. An analysis of European plastics
production, demand and waste data. PlasticsEurope Retrieved from https://www.plasticseurope.org/en/resources/publications/274-plastics-facts-2017
Accessed on 17 August 2020
PlasticsEurope (2019) Plastics – the facts 2019. An analysis of European plastics
production, demand and waste data. PlasticsEurope Retrieved from https://www.plasticseurope.org/en/resources/publications/1804-plastics-facts-2019
Accessed on 17 August 2020
Porter DW, Castranova V, Robinson VA, Hubbs AF, Mercer RR, Scabilloni J,
Goldsmith T, Schwegler-Berry D, Battelli L, Washko R, Burkhart J, Piacitelli C,
Whitmer M, Jones W (1999) Acute inflammatory reaction in rats after
intratracheal instillation of material collected from a nylon flocking plant. J
Toxicol Environ Health, Part A 57:25–45
Prata JC, Lavorante BRBO, Conceição M, Montenegro BSM, Guilhermino L (2018)
Influence of microplastics on the toxicity of the pharmaceuticals
procainamide and doxycycline on the marine microalgae Tetraselmis chuii.
Aquat Toxicol 197:143–152
Prokic MD, Radovanović TB, Gavrić JP, Faggio C (2019) Ecotoxicological effects of
microplastics: examination of biomarkers, current state and future
perspectives. TrAC Trends Anal Chem 111:37–46
Qi X, Ren Y, Wang X (2017) New advances in the biodegradation of poly (lactic)
acid. Int Biodeterior Biodegradation 117:215–223
Qiao R, Lu K, Deng Y, Ren H, Zhang Y (2019) Combined effects of polystyrene
microplastics and natural organic matter on the accumulation and toxicity ofcopper in zebrafish. Sci Total Environ 682:128–137
Qu H, Ma R, Wang B, Zhang Y, Yin L, Yu G, Deng S, Huang J, Wang Y (2018) Effectsof microplastics on the uptake, distribution and biotransformation of chiralantidepressant venlafaxine in aquatic ecosystem. J Hazard Mater 359:104–112
Raju S, Carbery M, Kuttykattil A, Senathirajah K, Subashchandrabose SR, Evans G,
Thavamani P (2018) Transport and fate of microplastics in wastewater
treatment plants: implications to environmental health. Rev Environ Sci
Biotechnol 17:637–653
Rehse S, Kloas W, Zarfl C (2018) Microplastics reduce short-term effects ofenvironmental contaminants. Part I: effects of bisphenol a on freshwaterzooplankton are lower in presence of PA particles. Int J Environ Res Public
Health 15:280
Rieux AD, Ragnarsson EGE, Gullberg E, Préat V, Schneider YJ, Artursson P (2005)
Transport of nanoparticles across an in vitro model of the human intestinal
follicle associated epithelium. Eur J Pharm Sci 25:455–465
Rios LM, Moore C, Jones PR (2007) Persistent organic pollutants carried bysynthetic polymers in the ocean environment. Mar Pollut Bull 54:1230–1237
Rocha-Santos T, Duarte AC (2015) A critical overview of the analytical approaches
to the occurrence, the fate and the behavior of microplastics in theenvironment. TrAC Trends Anal Chem 65:47–53
Rochman CM (2018) Microplastics research – from sink to source. Science 360:
28–29

Amelia et al. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science(2021) 8:12

Page 24 of 26

Rochman CM, Hentschel BT, Teh SJ (2014) Long-term sorption of metals is similar
among plastic types: implications for plastic debris in aquatic environments.
PLoS one:e85433.
Rochman CM, Hoh E, Hentschel BT, Kaye S (2013a) Long-term field measurementof sorption of organic contaminants to five types of plastic pellets:
implications for plastic marine debris. Environ Sci Technol 47:1646–1654
Rochman CM, Hoh E, Kurobe T, Teh SJ (2013b) Ingested plastic transfers
hazardous chemicals to fish and induces hepatic stress. Sci Rep:3
Rose D, Webber M (2019) Characterization of microplastics in the surface watersof Kingston harbour. Sci Total Environ 664:753–760
Ruiz-Orejón LF, Sardá R, Ramis-Pujol J (2018) Now, you see me: highconcentrations of floating plastic debris in the coastal waters of the Balearic
Islands (Spain). Mar Pollut Bull 133:636–646
Rujnic-Sokele M, Pilipovic A (2017) Challenges and opportunities ofbiodegradable plastics: a mini review. Waste Manag Res 35:132–140
Ryan PG (1988) Effects of ingested plastic on seabird feeding: evidence fromchickens. Mar Pollut Bull 19:125–128
Ryberg MW, Hauschild MZ, Wang F, Averous-Monnery S, Laurent A (2019) Global
environmental losses of plastics across their value chains. Resour Conserv
Recycl 151:104459
Saeed T, Al-Jandal N, Al-Mutairi A, Taqi H (2020) Microplastics in Kuwait marine
environment: results of first survey. Mar Pollut Bull 152:110880
Saliu F, Montano S, Garavaglia MG, Lasagni M, Seveso D, Galli P (2018)
Microplastic and charred microplastic in the Faafu atoll, Maldives. Mar Pollut
Bull 136:464–471
Savoca S, Capillo G, Mancuso M, Bottari T, Crupi R, Branca C, Spanò N (2019)
Microplastics occurrence in the Tyrrhenian waters and in the gastrointestinal
tract of two congener species of seabreams. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 67:
35–41
Scanes E, Wood H, Ross P (2019) Microplastics detected in haemolymph of the
Sydney rock oyster Saccostrea glomerata. Mar Pollut Bull 149:110537
Schönlau C, Karlsson TM, Rotander A, Nilsson H, Engwall M, van Bavel B, Kärrman
A (2020) Microplastics in sea-surface waters surrounding Sweden sampled bymanta trawl and in-situ pump. Mar Pollut Bull 153:111019
Schwabl P, Köppel S, Königshofer P, Bucsics T, Trauner M, Reiberger T, Liebmann
B (2019) Detection of various microplastics in human stool: a prospective
case series. Ann Intern Med 171:453–457
Scopetani C, Cincinelli A, Martellini T, Lombardini E, Ciofini A, Fortunati A,
Pasquali V, Ciattini S, Ugolini A (2018) Ingested microplastic as a two-way
transporter for PBDEs in Talitrus saltator. Environ Res 167:411–417
Sen SK, Raut S (2015) Microbial degradation of low density polyethylene (LDPE): a
review. J Environ Chem Eng 3:462–473
Setala O, Fleming-Lehtinen V, Lehtiniemi M (2014) Ingestion and transfer ofmicroplastics in the planktonic food web. Environ Pollut 185:77–83
Setala O, Norkko J, Lehtiniemi M (2016) Feeding type affects microplastic
ingestion in a coastal invertebrate community. Mar Pollut Bull 102:95–101
Shen XC, Li DC, Sima XF, Cheng HY, Jiang H (2018) The effects of environmental
conditions on the enrichment of antibiotics on microplastics in simulated
natural water column. Environ Res 166:377–383
Sleight VA, Bakir A, Thompson RC, Henry TB (2017) Assessment of microplasticsorbed contaminant bioavailability through analysis of biomarker gene
expression in larval zebrafish. Mar Pollut Bull 116:291–297
Song YK, Hong SH, Jang M, Kang JH, Kwon OY, Han GM, Shim WJ (2014) Large
accumulation of micro-sized synthetic polymer particles in the sea surface
microlayer. Environ Sci Technol 48:9014–9021
Sorb (2020) Dictionary.com Retrieved from https://www.dictionary.com/browse/
sorb Accessed on 17 August 2020.
Sørensen L, Rogers E, Altin D, Salaberria I, Booth AM (2020) Sorption of PAHs tomicroplastic and their bioavailability and toxicity to marine copepods underco-exposure conditions. Environ Pollut 258:113844
Steinmetz Z, Wollmann C, Schaefer M, Schaefer M, Buchmann C, David J, TrogerJ, Munoz K, Foro O, Schaumann GE (2016) Plastic mulching in agriculture.
Trading short-term agronomic benefits for long-term soil degradation? Sci
Total Environ 550:690–705
Stock V, Böhmert L, Lisicki E, Block R, Cara-Carmona J, Pack LK, Selb R,
Lichtenstein D, Voss L, Henderson CJ, Zabinsky E, Sieg H, Braeuning A,
Lampen A (2019) Uptake and effects of orally ingested polystyrene
microplastic particles in vitro and in vivo. Arch Toxicol 93:1817–1833
Su L, Deng H, Li B, Chen Q, Pettigrove V, Wu C, Shi H (2018) The occurrence of
microplastic in specific organs in commercially caught fishes from coast andestuary area of East China. J Hazard Mater 365:716–724

Sul JAI, Costa MF (2014) The present and future of microplastic pollution in themarine environment. Environ Pollut 185:352–364
Sun J, Dai X, Wang Q, van Loosdrecht MCM, Ni BJ (2019) Microplastics inwastewater treatment plants: detection, occurrence and removal. Water Res
152:21–37
Sun X, Liang J, Zhu M, Zhao Y, Zhang B (2018) Microplastics in seawater andzooplankton from the Yellow Sea. Environ Pollut 242:585–595
Sutton R, Mason SA, Stanek SK, Willis-Norton E, Wren IF, Box C (2016)
Microplastic contamination in the San Francisco Bay, California. USA Mar
Poll Bull:230–235
Syberg K, Nielsen A, Khan FR, Banta GT, Palmqvist A, Jepsen PM (2017)
Microplastic potentiates triclosan toxicity to the marine copepod Acartia
tonsa (Dana). J Toxicol Environ Health 80:1369–1371
Syranidou E, Karkanorachaki K, Amorotti F, Repouskou E, Kroll K, Kolvenbach B,
Corvini PF, Fava F, Kalogerakis N (2017) Development of tailored indigenous
marine consortia for the degradation of naturally weathered polyethylene
films. PLoS One 12:e0183984
Talvitie J, Mikola A, Koistinen A, Setala O (2017) Solutions to microplastic
pollution - removal of microplastics from wastewater effluent with advanced
wastewater treatment technologies. Water Res 123:401–407
Tan X, Yu X, Cai L, Wang J, Peng J (2019) Microplastics and associated PAHs in
surface water from the Feilaixia reservoir in the Beijiang River, China.
Chemosphere 221:834–840
Tanaka K, Takada H, Yamashita R, Mizukawa K, Fukuwaka MA, Watanuki Y (2013)
Accumulation of plastic-derived chemicals in tissues of seabirds ingesting
marine plastics. Mar Pollut Bull 69:219–222
Tanaka K, Takada H, Yamashita R, Mizukawa K, Fukuwaka MA, Watanuki Y (2015)
Facilitated leaching of additive-derived PBDEs from plastic by seabirds’
stomach oil and accumulation in tissues. Environ Sci Technol 49:11799–
11807
Tanaka K, Yamashita R, Takada H (2018) Transfer of hazardous chemicals fromingested plastics to higher-trophic-level organisms. In: Takada H,
Karapanagioti HK (eds) Hazardous chemicals associated with plastics in themarine environment. The handbook of environmental chemistry, vol 78.
Springer, Cham, pp 267–280
Ter HA, Ladirat L, Gendre X, Goudounèche D, Pusineri C, Routaboul C, Tenailleau
C, Duployer B, Perez E (2016) Understanding the fragmentation pattern ofmarine plastic debris. Environ Sci Technol 50:5668
Teuten EL, Rowland SJ, Galloway TS, Thompson RC (2007) Potential for plastics totransport hydrophobic contaminants. Environ Sci Technol 41:7759–7764
Teuten EL, Saquing JM, Knappe DRU, Barlaz MA, Jonsson S, Bjorn A, Rowland SJ,
Thompson RC, Galloway TS, Yamashita R, Ochi D, Watanuki Y, Moore C, Viet
PH, Tana TS, Prudente M, Boonyatumanond R, Zakaria MP, Akkhavong K,
Ogata Y, Hirai H, Iwasa S, Mizukawa K, Hagino Y, Imamura A, Saha M, Takada
H (2009) Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to theenvironment and to wildlife. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 364:2027–2045
Thompson RC, Moore CJ, vom Saal FS, Swan SH (2009) Plastics, the environmentand human health: current consensus and future trends. Philos Trans R Soc
364:2153–2166
Todd G, Wohlers D, Citra M (2003) Agency for toxic substances and disease
registry. Atlanta, GA
Tosetto L, Brown C, Williamson JE (2016) Microplastics on beaches: ingestion andbehavioral consequences for beachhoppers. Mar Biol 163:199
Tourinho PS, Koci V, Loureiro S, Gestel CAM (2019) Partitioning of chemical
contaminants to microplastics: sorption mechanisms, environmental
distribution and effects on toxicity and bioaccumulation. Environ Pollut 252:
1246–1256
Tsang YY, Mak CW, Liebich C, Lam SW, Sze ET, Chan KM (2017) Microplastic
pollution in the marine waters and sediments of Hong Kong. Mar Pollut Bull
115:20–28
Tsiota P, Karkanorachaki K, Syranidou E, Franchini M, Kalogerakis N (2018)
Microbial degradation of HDPE secondarymicroplastics: preliminary results.
Proceedings of the international conference on microplastic pollution in the
Mediterranean Sea, pp 181–188
Turner A, Holmes LA (2015) Adsorption of trace metals by microplastic pellets infresh water. Environ Chem 12:600
Uscategui YL, Arevalo FR, Diaz LE, Cobo MI, Valero MF (2016) Microbial degradation,
cytotoxicity and antibacterial activity of polyurethanes based on modified castor
oil and polycaprolactone. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed 27:1860–1879
USEPA (2012) Basic information about Di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in drinking
water. United States Environmental Protection Agency Accessed on 17

Amelia et al. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science(2021) 8:12

Page 25 of 26

August 2020. Retrieved from http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/
basicinformation/di_2-ethylhexyl_phthalate.cfm
Vajargah MF, Imanpoor MR, Shabani A, Hedayati A, Faggio C (2019) Effect oflong-term exposure of silver nanoparticles on growth indices, hematologicaland biochemical parameters and gonad histology of male goldfish (Carassius
auratus Gibelio). Microsc Res Tech 82:1224–1230
Vajargah MF, Yalsuyi AM, Hedayati A, Faggio C (2018) Histopathological lesions
and toxicity in common carp (Cyprinus carpio L. 1758) induced by copper
nanoparticles. Microsc Res Tech 81:724–729
van der Hal N, Yeruham E, Shukis D, Rilov G, Astrahan P, Angel DL (2020) Uptake
and incorporation of PCBs by eastern Mediterranean rabbitfish that
consumed microplastics. Mar Pollut Bull 150:110697
Vega RL, Epel D (2004) Stress-induced apoptosis in sea urchin embryogenesis.
Mar Environ Res 58:799–802
Velzeboer I, Kwadijk CJAF, Koelmans AA (2014) Strong sorption of PCBs
tonanoplastics, microplastics, carbon nanotubes and fullerenes. Environ Sci
Technol 48:4869–4876
Veneman WJ, Spaink HP, Brun NR, Bosker T, Vijver MG (2017) Pathway analysis ofsystemic transcriptome responses to injected polystyrene particles inzebrafish larvae. Aquat Toxicol 190:112–120
Vethaak AD, Leslie HA (2016) Plastic debris is a human health issue. Environ Sci
Technol 50:6825–6826
Viršek MK, Lovšin MN, Koren Š, Kržan A, Peterlin M (2017) Microplastics as avector for the transport of the bacterial fish pathogen species Aeromonas
salmonicida. Mar Pollut Bull 125:301–309
Volkheimer G (1975) Hematogenous dissemination of ingested PVC particles. Ann
N Y Acad Sci 246:164–171
Vroom RJ, Koelmans AA, Besseling E, Halsband C (2017) Aging of microplastics
promotes their ingestion by marine zooplankton. Environ Pollut 231:987–996
Wang F, Shih KM, Li XY (2015) The partition behavior of perfluorooctanesulfonate(PFOS) and perfluorooctanesulfonamide (FOSA) on microplastics.
Chemosphere 119:841–847
Wang F, Wong CS, Chen D, Lu X, Wang F, Zeng EY (2018) Interaction of toxic
chemicals with microplastics: a critical review. Water Res 139:208–219
Wang J, Liu X, Liu G, Zhang Z, Wu H, Cui B, Bai J, Zhang W (2019) Size effect ofpolystyrene microplastics on sorption of phenanthrene and nitrobenzene.
Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 173:331–338
Wang W, Ge J, Yu X (2020a) Bioavailability and toxicity of microplastics to fish
species: a review. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 189:109913
Wang YL, Lee YH, Chiu IJ, Lin YF, Chiu HW (2020b) Potent impact of plastic
nanomaterials and micromaterials on the food chain and human health. Int J
Mol Sci 21:1727
Wardrop P, Shimeta J, Nugegoda D, Morrison PD, Miranda A, Tang M, Clarke BO(2016) Chemical pollutants sorbed to ingested microbeads from personalcare products accumulate in fish. Environ Sci Technol 50:4037–4044
Weithmann N, Möller JN, Löder MGJ, Piehl S, Laforsch C, Freitag R (2018) Organic
fertilizer as a vehicle for the entry of microplastic into the environment. Sci
Adv 4
Wen B, Jin SR, Chen ZZ, Gao JZ, Liu YN, Liu JH, Feng XS (2018) Single andcombined effects of microplastics and cadmium on the cadmium
accumulation, antioxidant defence and innate immunity of the discus fish
(Symphysodon aequifasciatus). Environ Pollut 243:462–471
Windsor FM, Tilley RM, Tyler CR, Ormerod SJ (2019) Microplastic ingestion by
riverine macroinvertebrates. Sci Total Environ 646:68–74
Wong SL, Nyakuma BB, Wong KY, Lee CT, Lee TH, Lee CH (2020) Microplastics
and nanoplastics in global food webs: a bibliometric analysis (2009-2019).
Mar Pollut Bull 158:111432
Woodall LC, Sanchez-Vidal A, Canals M, Paterson GL, Coppock R, Sleight V, Calafat
A, Rogers AD, Narayanaswamy BE, Thompson RC (2014) The deep sea is amajor sink for microplastic debris. R Soc Open Sci 1:140317
Wright SL, Kelly FJ (2017) Plastic and human health: a micro issue? Environ Sci
Technol 2017(51):6634–6647
Wright SL, Rowe D, Thompson RC, Galloway TS (2013a) Microplastic ingestion
decreases energy reserves in marine worms. Curr Biol 23:R1031–R1033
Wright SL, Thompson RC, Galloway TS (2013b) The physical impacts of
microplastics on marine organisms: a review. Environ Pollut 178:483–492
Wu B, Taylor CM, Knappe DR, Nanny MA, Barlaz MA (2001) Factors controllingalkylbenzene sorption to municipal solid waste. Environ Sci Technol 35:4569–
4576
Wu C, Zhang K, Huang X, Liu J (2016) Sorption of pharmaceuticals and personalcare products to PE debris. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 23:8819–8826

Wu WM, Yang J, Criddle CS (2017) Microplastics pollution and reduction
strategies. Front Environ Sci Eng 11:6
Xia Y, Zhou J, Gong Y, Li Z, Zeng EY (2020) Strong influence of surfactants on
virgin hydrophobic microplastics adsorbing ionic organic pollutants. Environ
Pollut 265:115061
Yamashita R, Tanimura A (2007) Floating plastic in the Kuroshio current area,
western North Pacific Ocean. Mar Pollut Bull 54:485–488
Yang D, Shi H, Li L, Li J, Jabeen K, Kolandhasamy P (2015a) Microplastic pollution
in table salts from China. Environ Sci Technol 49:13622–13627
Yang Y, Yang J, Wu WM, Zhao J, Song Y, Gao L, Yang R, Jiang L (2015b)
Biodegradation and mineralization of polystyrene by plastic-eating
mealworms: part 1. Chemical and physical characterization and isotopic tests.
Environ Sci Technol 49:12080–12086
Yeo BG, Takada H, Yamashita R, Okazaki Y, Uchida K, Tokai T, Tanaka K, Trenholm
N (2020) PCBs and PBDEs in microplastic particles and zooplankton in open
water in the Pacific Ocean and around the coast of Japan. Mar Pollut Bull
151:110806
Yin L, Chen B, Xia B, Shi X, Qu K (2018) Polystyrene microplastics alter the
behavior, energy reserve and nutritional composition of marine jacopever(Sebastes schlegelii). J Hazard Mater 360:97–105
Yoshida S, Hiraga K, Takehana T, Taniguchi I, Yamaji H, Maeda Y, Toyohara K,
Miyamoto K, Kimura Y, Oda K (2016) A bacterium that degrades andassimilates poly (ethylene terephthalate). Science 351:1196–1199
Yu F, Sun Y, Yang M, Ma J (2019b) Adsorption mechanism and effect of moisture
contents on ciprofloxacin removal by three-dimensional porous graphenehydrogel. J Hazard Mater 374:195–202
Yu F, Yang C, Zhu Z, Bai X, Ma J (2019a) Adsorption behavior of organic
pollutants and metals on micro/nanoplastics in the aquatic environment. Sci
Total Environ 694:133643
Yu X, Ladewig S, Bao S, Toline CA, Whitmire S, Chow AT (2018) Occurrence anddistribution of microplastics at selected coastal sites along the southeastern
United States. Sci Total Environ 613-614:298–305
Yuan J, Ma J, Sun Y, Zhou T, Zhao Y, Yu F (2020) Microbial degradation andother environmental aspects of microplastics/plastics. Sci Total Environ
715:136968
Zettler ER, Mincer TJ, Amaral-Zettler LA (2013) Life in the “plastisphere”: microbialcommunities on plastic marine debris. Environ Sci Technol 47:7137–7146
Zhan Z, Wang J, Peng J, Xie Q, Huang Y, Gao Y (2016) Sorption of 3,3′,4,4′tetrachlorobiphenyl by microplastics: a case study of PP. Mar Pollut Bull 110:559–563
Zhang F, Man YB, Mo Y, Man KY, Wong MH (2019a) Direct and indirect effects of
microplastics on bivalves, with a focus on edible species: a mini-review. Crit
Rev Environ Sci Technol:1–35
Zhang H (2017) Transport of microplastics in coastal seas. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci
199:74–86
Zhang H, Fei Y, Wang H, Chen Y, Huang S, Yu B, Wang J, Tong Y, Wen D, Zhou B,
He X, Xia X, Luo Y (2020a) Interaction of microplastics and organic pollutants:
quantification, environmental fates, and ecological consequences. In: He D,
Luo Y (eds) Microplastics in terrestrial environments – emerging
contaminants and major challenges. The handbook of environmental
chemistry. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 1–24
Zhang S, Ding J, Razanajatovo RM, Jiang H, Zou H, Zhu W (2019b) Interactive
effects of polystyrene microplastics and roxithromycin on bioaccumulation
and biochemical status in the freshwater fish red tilapia (Oreochromis
niloticus). Sci Total Environ 648:1431–1439
Zhang W, Zhang S, Wang J, Wang Y, Mu J, Wang P, Ma D (2017) Microplastic
pollution in the surface waters of the Bohai Sea, China. Environ Pollut 231:
541–548
Zhang X, Chen J, Li J (2020b) The removal of microplastics in the wastewater
treatment process and their potential impact on anaerobic digestion due topollutants association. Chemosphere 251:126360
Zhang Z, Chen Y (2020) Effects of microplastics on wastewater and sewage
sludge treatment and their removal: a review. Chem Eng J 382:122955
Zhao S, Zhu L, Wang T, Li D (2014) Suspended microplastics in the surface waterof the Yangtze estuary system, China: first observations on occurrence,
distribution. Mar Pollut Bull 86:562–568
Zhao SY, Danley M, Ward JE, Li DJ, Mincer TJ (2017) An approach for extraction,
characterization and quantitation of microplastic in natural marine snow
using Raman microscopy. Anal Methods 9:1470–1478
Zhao SY, Ward JE, Danley M, Mincer TJ (2018) Field-based evidence formicroplastic in marine aggregates and mussels: implications for trophic
transfer. Environ Sci Technol 52:11038–11048

Amelia et al. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science

Amelia et al. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science(2021) 8:12

Zheng Y, Li J, Cao W, Liu X, Jiang F, Ding J, Sun C (2019) Distribution
characteristics of microplastics in the seawater and sediment: a case study in
Jiaozhou Bay, China. Sci Total Environ 674:27–35
Zhu D, Chen Q, An X, Yang X, Christie P, Ke X, Wu L, Zhu Y (2018a) Exposure ofsoil collembolans to microplastics perturbs their gut microbiota and alters
their isotopic composition. Soil Biol Biochem 116:302–310
Zhu J, Zhang Q, Li Y, Tan S, Kang Z, Yu X, Shi H (2019) Microplastic
pollution in the Maowei Sea, a typical mariculture bay of China. Sci
Total Environ 658:62–68
Zhu L, Bai H, Chen B, Sun X, Qu K, Xia B (2018b) Microplastic pollution in North
Yellow Sea, China: observations on occurrence, distribution andidentification. Sci Total Environ 636:20–29
Ziajahromi S, Kumar A, Neale PA, Leusch FD (2019) Effects of PE
microplastics on the acute toxicity of a synthetic pyrethroid to midge
larvae (Chironomus tepperi) in synthetic and river water. Sci Total Environ
671:971–975
Zuo LZ, Li HX, Lin L, Sun YX, Diao ZH, Liu S, Zhang ZY, Xu XR (2019) Sorption
and desorption of phenanthrene on biodegradable poly (butylene adipate
co-terephtalate) microplastics. Chemosphere 215:25–32

Publisher’s NoteSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims inpublished maps and institutional affiliations.

Page 26 of 26