Cited by 658Microplastics and Plastic PollutionEnvironmental Toxicology and EcotoxicologyPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts

What is known and unknown about the effects of plastic pollution: A meta-analysis and systematic review

Bucci, K., Tulio, M., Rochman, C. M.·2020·Ecological Applications

Abstract

As a consequence of the global ubiquity of plastic pollution, scientists, decision-makers, and the public often ask whether macroplastics (>5 mm) and microplastics (<5 mm) have a realized ecological threat. In 2016, we conducted a systematic review of the literature and made a call for further research testing hypotheses about ecological effects. In the subsequent years, the amount of relevant research has risen tremendously. Here, we reassess the literature to determine the current weight of evidence about the effects of plastic pollution across all levels of biological organization. Our data spans marine, freshwater, and terrestrial environments. We extracted data from 139 lab and field studies testing 577 independent effects across a variety of taxa and with various types, sizes, and shapes of plastic. Overall, 59% of the tested effects were detected. Of these, 58% were due to microplastics and 42% were due to macroplastics. Of the effects that were not detected, 94% were from microplastics and 6% were from macroplastics. We found evidence that whether or not an effect is detected, as well as the severity and direction of the effect, is driven by dose, particle shape, polymer type, and particle size. Based on our analyses, there is no doubt that macroplastics are causing ecological effects, however, the effects of microplastics are much more complex. We also assessed the environmental relevancy of experimental studies by comparing the doses used in each exposure to the concentrations and sizes of microplastics found in the environment. We determined that only 17% of the concentrations used in experimental studies have been found in nature, and that 80% of particle sizes used in experiments fall below the size range of the majority of environmental sampling. Based on our systematic review and meta-analysis, we make a call for future work that recognizes the complexity of microplastics and designs tests to better understand how different types, sizes, shapes, doses, and exposure durations affect wildlife. We also call for more ecologically and environmentally relevant studies, particularly in freshwater and terrestrial environments.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/eap.2044

Cites

81 of 81 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Our exposures of 10 and 50 microplastics/L are slightly higher than the average concentration reported in lake water in nature but significantly lower than the majority of published laboratory studies and lower than those used in other mesocosm studies.

    “Our exposures of 10 (low treatment) and 50 (high treatment) microplastics/L are slightly higher than the average concentration reported in lake water in nature but significantly lower than the majority of published laboratory studies (Bucci et al., 2020) and lower than those used in other mesocosm studies (Aljaibachi et al., 2020;Marchant et al., 2023;Yıldız et al., 2022).”
  • Studies investigating population- and community-level impacts of microplastics have increased in recent years but are still limited.

    “Studies investigating population-and community-level impacts of microplastics have increased in recent years but are still limited (Bucci et al., 2020).”
  • Much of the research investigating the biological effects of microplastics has documented individual-level impacts, leaving gaps in knowledge for higher levels of biological organization.

    “Much of the research investigating the biological effects of microplastics has documented individual-level impacts, leaving gaps in knowledge for higher levels of biological organization (Bucci et al., 2020;Ockenden et al., 2021).”
  • The uptake of microplastics has demonstrated potential to adversely affect organisms, but observed effects are nonuniform across levels of biological organization and are complicated by exposure concentration and particle characteristics.

    “The uptake of microplastics has demonstrated potential to adversely affect organisms; however, the effects observed in laboratory studies have been nonuniform across levels of biological organization and are further complicated by exposure concentration and both the physical characteristics and chemical composition of the particle (Bucci et al., 2020;Castro-Castellon et al., 2022;Zimmermann et al.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bucci, K., Tulio, M., & Rochman, C. M.
Affiliations
University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Rochman, C. M.
Venue
Ecological Applications
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-01-02
Volume
30
Issue
2
Pages
e02044-e02044
ISSN
  • 1051-0761 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-5582
OpenAlex
W2991566779
Cited by
658
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 74 · 2025: 93 · 2024: 122 · 2023: 109 · 2022: 126 · 2021: 93 · 2020: 41
FWCI
2.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Ecological Applications (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Microplastics and Plastic Pollution
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Environmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Pharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts
Keywords
plastic pollution, microplastics, macroplastics, dose-response relationship, particle size, particle shape, polymer types, freshwater ecosystems, terrestrial ecosystems, marine ecosystems, wildlife impacts
MeSH terms
Microplastics, Environmental Monitoring, Environmental Pollution, Fresh Water, Plastics, Water Pollutants, Chemical

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review