# E-Waste Plastics in the Environment: Assessment, Characterisation, and Bioprocessing
## 1 Introduction
\begin{tabular}{l} Large majority (88.61\%) \\ under 1 mm in size \\ colour: black (34.1\%), white \\ (33.1\%), grey (27.5\%). \\ transparent, brown, yellow, \\ blue, red, green, and orange \\ (66.42\%) \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{4}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{l} Optical Microscopy \\ FTIR \\ SEM \\ \end{tabular}  } \\  & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{3-6}  & & & & &  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{142.3 pt} p{142.3 pt} p{142.3 pt} p{142.3 pt} p{142.3 pt} p{142.3 pt}} \hline
**Location** & **Identified Polymers, Copolymers, and Resins** & **Physicochemical Characteristics** & **Reported Abundance** & **Analytical Techniques** & **Reference** \\ \hline  & & Majority under 2 mm in size (up to 9400 particles per kg of \(\mathrm{s}\)) & & & \\ Former e-waste recycling site (Longtang County, PR China) & Polystyrene, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, polyethylene terephthalate, polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride, polypropylene, polyimide, polyethylene, polyethylene, polycarbonate & & & \\  & & Majority under 2 mm in size (up to 9400 particles per kg of \(\mathrm{s}\)) & & & \\ Former e-waste recycling site (Longtang County, PR China) & Polystyrene, acrylonitrile butadiene polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride  
E-waste recycling facilities, particularly those with physical dismantling processes, are major sources of e-(micro)plastic pollution. This contamination spreads to adjacent environments due to inefficient containment measures, as evidenced in Guiyu ([PERSON] et al. [24]) and Shanghai ([PERSON] et al. [25]), People's Republic of China. [PERSON] et al. [24] reports the presence of e-plastics in 11 locations around e-waste processing facilities, landfill sites, and farmlands in Guiyu, People's Republic of China. Approximately 13,900 \(\pm\) 7260 particles per kg of soil were found in a former e-waste disassembly site, 12,300 \(\pm\) 10,500 particles per kg of soil in polluted farmlands, 3570 \(\pm\) 688 particles per kg of soil in a waste dump, and 36.7 \(\pm\) 24.3 particles per kg of soil in fruit orchards (Table 1). In total, these represented sixty types of polymers (e.g., polystyrene, polypropylene, and polyvinyl alcohol accounting for 35% of the microplastics; resins such as polyurethane resin and alkyl resin, and plastic alloys/blends of several different polymers (e.g., polypropylene-polyethylene) accounting for 8.20% and 5.66%, respectively, of all particles found). These microplastics were also weathered through environmental exposure, as observed through visual inspection, and confirmed by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). E-waste (micro)plastic pollution seemed to decrease with the distance to the e-waste facilities. In fact, in agricultural plots, [PERSON] et al. [24] reported the lowest number of particles per kg of soil, and the presence of two major polymers, polypropylene and polyethylene, suggesting limited microplastic contamination outside of e-waste disassembly sites, and a greater contribution of plastic mulding [29]. In Shanghai, People's Republic of China, [PERSON] et al. [27] reported the presence of over one hundred types of polymers. These were often contaminated with brominated additives, as assessed through micro-FTIR and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS), in air, dust, and soil samples collected in several e-waste processing facilities and office facilities. For example, regarding the roads outside of the facilities, microplastics in the retrieved samples were found to vary from a maximum of 7778 particles per 5 g of sample (89.390 mg/kg) in the workshop-adjacent road to 1253 particles per 5 g of sample (21.555 mg/kg) in the road farthest from that location. However, although the number of particles tended to decrease as the distance from the workshop increased, no significant differences were found across the four studied roads.