Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 497

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of microplastic pollution in different water bodies from urban creeks to coastal waters

Luo, Wenya, Su, Lei, Craig, Nicholas J., Du, Fangni, Wu, Chengxi, Shi, Huahong·2019·Environmental Pollution

Abstract

Although freshwater and estuary systems are recognized as origins and transport pathways of plastics to the oceans, there is a lack of comparison of microplastics in different water bodies or river networks. In the present study, the spatial distribution of microplastics was compared across different water bodies, including city creeks (Shanghai), rivers (Suzhou River and Huangpu River), an estuary (Yangtze Estuary) and coastal waters (East China Sea) in the Yangtze Delta area. Significant spatial differences of microplastic abundances were revealed across the sampling areas. The results showed that the abundance of microplastics was higher (1.8-2.4 items/L) in freshwater bodies than that in estuarine and coastal water (0.9 items/L). In the Suzhou River and the Huangpu River, microplastics showed trends of increasing abundance downstream, where the peak of microplastic pollution is closer to the city center and the estuary. In respect of abundance, microplastics are likely to be transported from pollution sources to sink areas via river networks. The proportion of fibers was the highest in city creeks (88%), followed by the Suzhou River (85%), the Huangpu River (81%), the Yangtze Estuary (66%) and the East China Sea (37%). Similarly, polyesters dominated in city creeks and rivers. The results suggest that both the abundance and properties of microplastic pollution varies across different water bodies. Microplastic pollution in small freshwater bodies is more serious than in estuarine and coastal waters. Therefore, we support prioritization of water monitoring for microplastics within entire river networks, instead of single water body surveys.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.11.081

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 13 references

Cited by

See all 497

Metadata

Authors
Luo, W., Su, L., Craig, N. J., Du, F., Wu, C., & Shi, H.
Venue
Environmental Pollution
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-03
Volume
246
Pages
174-182
ISSN
0269-7491 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2902327205
Cited by
497
References
13
FWCI
12.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of microplastic pollution in different water bodies from urban creeks to coastal waters. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.11.081
The paper
Luo, W., Su, L., Craig, N. J., Du, F., Wu, C., & Shi, H. (2019). Comparison of microplastic pollution in different water bodies from urban creeks to coastal waters. Environmental Pollution. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.11.081

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.