CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,857Microplastics and Plastic PollutionPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental ImpactsOil Spill Detection and Mitigation

Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes

Open access
Eriksen, Marcus, Mason, Sherri, Wilson, Stiv, Box, Carolyn, Zellers, Ann, Edwards, William, Farley, Hannah, Amato, Stephen·2013·Marine Pollution Bulletin
DOI 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.10.007
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Neuston samples were collected at 21 stations during an ~700 nautical mile (~1300 km) expedition in July 2012 in the Laurentian Great Lakes of the United States using a 333 μm mesh manta trawl and analyzed for plastic debris. Although the average abundance was approximately 43,000 microplastic particles/km², station 20, downstream from two major cities, contained over 466,000 particles/km², greater than all other stations combined. SEM analysis determined nearly 20% of particles less than 1 mm, which were initially identified as microplastic by visual observation, were aluminum silicate from coal ash. Many microplastic particles were multi-colored spheres, which were compared to, and are suspected to be, microbeads from consumer products containing microplastic particles of similar size, shape, texture and composition. The presence of microplastics and coal ash in these surface samples, which were most abundant where lake currents converge, are likely from nearby urban effluent and coal burning power plants.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Neuston sampling across Lakes Superior, Huron, and Erie in July 2012 found microplastic pollution at nearly all 21 stations, with an average abundance of 43,157 particles/km² and extreme concentrations in western Lake Erie. SEM/EDS showed that many particles visually identified as microplastic were actually coal ash, while multi-colored spheres were suspected to be consumer-product microbeads.

Key findings

  • All 21 net tows except sample 13 contained plastic; adjusted average abundance was 43,157 particles/km², with counts ranging from 0 to over 450,000 particles/km².
  • Sample 20 contained 1,101 plastic particles, reported as 466,305 particles/km² in Table 1 (463,423 particles/km² in the results text), greater than all other samples combined. Lake Erie samples accounted for ~90% of all pelagic plastic debris, and samples 20 and 21 alone contained 85% of all microplastic particles collected.
  • SEM/EDS determined that nearly 20% of particles <1 mm initially identified as microplastic were aluminum silicate from coal ash; 8 of 21 samples contained coal/fly ash, with an average contribution of 20% within the 0.355–1 mm size class, and samples 20 and 21 contained 28% and 27% aluminum silicate, respectively.
  • The 0.355–0.999 mm size class accounted for 81% of total particle count; pellets and fragments were far more abundant than other particle types. Multi-colored spheres were compared to polyethylene microbeads from two national facial cleanser brands and found to be similar in shape, size, color, and elemental composition.

Methods

  • During a ~700 nautical mile expedition from 11–31 July 2012, 21 neuston samples were collected in Lakes Superior (5), Huron (8), and Erie (8) using a 333 µm mesh manta trawl towed for 60 min at 2.0 knots.
  • Samples were preserved in 70% isopropyl alcohol, rinsed in salt water, sorted under a dissecting microscope, and separated into three size classes (0.355–0.999 mm, 1.00–4.749 mm, >4.75 mm) and five categories (fragment, foamed polystyrene, line, pellet, film); abundance per km² was calculated from tow length and trawl width.
  • All particles <1 mm from each sample were examined by SEM/EDS for elemental composition; suspected microbeads were compared with two national facial cleanser products, and a fraction of sample 21 was soaked in 2 M HCl for 24 h to remove biofilm before SEM imaging.

Limitations

  • The paper states that visual observation alone is insufficient to separate microplastic from other debris, as shown by the misidentification of coal ash particles.
  • Evident from the text: SEM/EDS analysis was applied only to particles <1 mm, while particles >1 mm were identified visually and excluded from SEM/EDS.
  • Evident from the text: the survey covered only three of the five Great Lakes during a single July 2012 expedition, with high spatial variability; the microbead source attribution is suspected based on similarity to consumer products rather than confirmed by tracing.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.10.007

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 10 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    SEM/EDS analysis showed that many particles initially identified as microplastic were actually aluminum silicates, identified as coal ash or coal fly ash.

    “SEM/EDS analysis also allowed the determination that many particles initially identified as microplastic were actually aluminum silicates.”
    • Also stated in: § 3. Results · plain
      “The aluminum silicate particles were determined to be coal ash and coal fly ash (Fig. 2) based upon a match between our SEM/EDS analysis and similar analyses performed by a commercial ash analysis firm”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites STS Analytical Testing Laboratory

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Findingown data

    Microplastic particle counts across the 21 samples ranged from 0 to more than 450,000 particles per square kilometer.

    “with particle counts ranging from $450 up to over 450,000 per square kilometer”
    • Also stated in: § 5. Conclusion · plain
      “overall counts varying from 0 to over 450,000 plastic particles per square kilometer”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    All 21 net tows except sample 13 contained plastic.

    “Of the 21 net tows, all samples except one, sample 13, contained plastic”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The average adjusted microplastic abundance across the 21 Great Lakes surface samples was approximately 43,000 particles per square kilometer (reported as 43,157 ± 115,519 particles/km2).

    “Although the average abundance was approximately 43,000 microplastic particles/km 2”
    • Also stated in: § 3. Results · plain
      “the average abundance was 43,157 plastic particles/km 2”
    • Also stated in: § 5. Conclusion · plain
      “yielding an average count density of 43,157 ± 115,519 particles/km 2”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Particles in the 0.355-0.999 mm size class accounted for 81% of the total particle count.

    “The size classes representing particles 0.355-0.999mm accounted for 81% of the total particle count.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 10
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 4

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Sample 20 had the highest microplastic abundance in a single 60-minute tow, about 463,423 particles per square kilometer, and its count exceeded the combined count of all other samples.

    “contained 1101 plastic particles, or 463,423 particles/km 2 , which was the highest count in one 60-min tow and greater than the count of all other samples combined.”
    • Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
      “station 20, downstream from two major cities, contained over 466,000 particles/km 2 , greater than all other stations combined.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Among particles in the 0.355-1 mm size class, about 20% were coal or fly ash, and 8 of the 21 samples contained such ash.

    “Of our 21 samples, 8 were found to contain coal/fly ash, with an average contribution of 20% (within the 0.355-1 mm size classification).”
    • Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
      “SEM analysis determined nearly 20% of particles less than 1 mm, which were initially identified as microplastic by visual observation, were aluminum silicate from coal ash.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Adjusted microplastic counts showed great spatial variability, and Lake Erie samples were consistently the most concentrated among the three lakes sampled.

    “While the samples showed great spatial variability (Fig. 1), with particle counts ranging from $450 up to over 450,000 per square kilometer, the samples from Lake Erie were consistently the most concentrated as compared to the other two Great Lakes sampled.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Samples 20 and 21 contained 28% and 27% aluminum silicate, respectively.

    “Our two samples with high particle counts, sample 20 & 21, contained 28% and 27% aluminum silicate, respectively”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Samples 20 and 21 were collected in an area of converging currents in Lake Erie, near several coal-burning power plants, and downstream from Detroit, Cleveland, and Erie.

    “These two samples were collected in the area of converging currents, are in close proximity to several coal burning power plants (Stamper et al., 2012) and are directly downstream from the cities of Detroit, MI, Cleveland, OH and Erie, PA, (Fig. 1).”
    • Also stated in: § 4. Discussion · hedged
      “Annual mean current modeling suggest that currents in Lake Erie are pushed southward along the shoreline (Beletsky et al., 1999).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Stamper et al., 2012

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Beletsky et al., 1999 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Lake Superior samples tended to have slightly higher particle counts than Lake Huron samples.

    “tended to show slightly higher particle counts as compared to Lake Huron.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    SEM/EDS analysis was used to confirm the elemental composition of particles and to exclude non-polymeric paint chips from plastic counts.

    “SEM/EDS analyses confirmed that suspected paint fragments were not polymeric and had a nearly identical elemental fingerprint to samples taken from the vessel.It was concluded that these were paint chips from the vessel and they were excluded from plastic particle counts.”
    • Also stated in: § 2. Materials and methods · plain
      “Qualitative elemental composition of particles was confirmed using an Oxford INCA Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy system (EDS).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Particles larger than 1 mm were excluded from SEM/EDS analysis because they were considered more easily identified as plastic by visual observation.

    “Particles >1 mm were more easily identified as plastic, and therefore excluded from SEM/EDS analysis.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Particles larger than 1 mm can be reliably identified as plastic by visual observation without SEM/EDS confirmation.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Microbeads are microplastic by design and have similar consequences in the marine environment.

    “Microbeads are microplastic by design and have similar consequences in the marine environment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In the 8 states bordering the Great Lakes, there are 144 coal-burning power plants, which may release aluminum silicates as coal ash or fly ash into waterways through wastewater discharge or aeolian transport.

    “In the 8 states that border the Great Lakes, there are 144 coal-burning power plants (Stamper et al., 2012), which may release aluminum silicates in the form of coal ash or fly ash into waterways through wastewater discharge or aeolian transport.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Stamper et al., 2012

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Microplastic particles from sandblasting media have been suspected to pollute the marine environment since the early 1990s.

    “microplastic particles from sandblasting media have been suspected to pollute the marine environment since the early 1990s (Zitko and Hanlon, 1991).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Zitko and Hanlon, 1991 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The microplastics and coal ash in the surface samples are likely from nearby urban effluent and coal-burning power plants.

    “The presence of microplastics and coal ash in these surface samples, which were most abundant where lake currents converge, are likely from nearby urban effluent and coal burning power plants.”
    • Also stated in: § 4. Discussion · plain
      “These two samples were collected in the area of converging currents, are in close proximity to several coal burning power plants (Stamper et al., 2012) and are directly downstream from the cities of Detroit, MI, Cleveland, OH and Erie, PA, (Fig. 1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Stamper et al., 2012

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Polymeric sandblasting media materials have densities greater than freshwater and would be negatively buoyant, making them unlikely to appear as drifting pollutants in the Great Lakes samples.

    “All of these materials would be negatively buoyant in freshwater, and therefore are not likely to appear within samples obtained in the Great Lakes.”
    • Also stated in: § 5. Conclusion · hedged
      “Though sandblasting media may release microplastic particles to the environment, their negative buoyancy in freshwater likely eliminates them as a drifting pollutant.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
13 of 13

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Few, if any, wastewater treatment facilities capture all floating, non-biodegradable particulate of 0.5 mm size or smaller.

    “but few, if any, wastewater treatment facilities capture all floating, non-biodegradable particulate of 0.5 mm size or smaller.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Particles larger than 1 mm can be reliably identified as plastic by visual observation without SEM/EDS confirmation.

    “Particles >1 mm were more easily identified as plastic, and therefore excluded from SEM/EDS analysis.”
2 of 2

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Sample 20 has two reported abundance values

    Major

    The Results give sample 20 an abundance of 463,423 particles/km2, but Table 1 gives 466,305 particles/km2 for the same sample.

  • Reported count range excludes a zero-count sample

    Minor

    The stated range starts at approximately 450 particles/km2, but Table 1 reports zero for sample 13.

  • Lake Erie samples are not consistently the most concentrated

    Minor

    Table 1 reports 4,686 particles/km2 for Lake Erie sample 15, below the 12,645 particles/km2 reported for Lake Superior sample 1. Thus not every Lake Erie sample exceeds samples from the other lakes.

3 of 3

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Eriksen, M., Mason, S., Wilson, S., Box, C., Zellers, A., Edwards, W., Farley, H., & Amato, S.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • SUNY Fredonia (US)
  • Niagara University (US)
Corresponding author
Eriksen, Marcus
ORCID
Venue
Marine Pollution Bulletin
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-12
Volume
77
Issue
1-2
Pages
177-182
ISSN
0025-326X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.10.007
OpenAlex
W2150503350
Cited by
1,857
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 100 · 2025: 148 · 2024: 199 · 2023: 213 · 2022: 226 · 2021: 224 · 2020: 214 · 2019: 167 · 2018: 116 · 2017: 101 · 2016: 74 · 2015: 51 · 2014: 22
FWCI
36.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Marine Pollution Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ScholarSphere (Penn State Libraries) (submittedVersion)
Funders
River Foundation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Microplastics and Plastic Pollution
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Pharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Oil Spill Detection and Mitigation
Keywords
microplastic pollution, Great Lakes, neuston, surface water, microbeads, coal ash, aluminum silicate, urban effluents, coal-fired power plants, lake currents
MeSH terms
Environmental Monitoring, Plastics, United States, Water Pollutants, Chemical, Lakes

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-09.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.

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