The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 10 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
13 Own result · 9 Own interpretation · 4 Sources not found · 4 No full text of the sources · 3 Own method · 1 Not checked yet · 1 No basis given
In the paper
“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”
§ Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes > 3. Results
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites STS Analytical Testing Laboratory
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainn = 21- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 3. Results · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes > 3. Results
plainn = 21- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 5. Conclusion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of the 21 net tows, all samples except one, sample 13, contained plastic”
§ Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes > 3. Results
plainn = 21- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes > Abstract
plainn = 21- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 3. Results · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The size classes representing particles 0.355-0.999mm accounted for 81% of the total particle count.”
§ Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes > 3. Results
plainn = 21- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In fact, Lake Erie samples account for $90% of all the pelagic plastic debris”
§ Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes > 3. Results
plainn = 21- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“with samples 20 and 21 alone containing 85% of all microplastic particles collected in all samples combined.”
§ Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes > 3. Results
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Microplastic pellets and fragments were far more abundant than other particle types.”
§ Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes > 3. Results
plainn = 21- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The microbeads within these consumer products were compared to the multi-colored microplastic spheres in the samples, and found to be of similar shape, size, color and elemental composition (Fig. 4).”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · hedged
“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.”
§ Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes > 3. Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · hedged
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We report here the first open-water survey for plastic pollution within the Laurentian Great Lakes system.”
§ Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes > 1. Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 10
- Probably not a substantial claim. 4
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes > 3. Results
plainn = 21- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes > 3. Results
plainn = 21- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes > 3. Results
plaincorrelationaln = 21- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our two samples with high particle counts, sample 20 & 21, contained 28% and 27% aluminum silicate, respectively”
§ Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes > 3. Results
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes > 4. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Stamper et al., 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Beletsky et al., 1999 source
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 4. Discussion · hedged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“tended to show slightly higher particle counts as compared to Lake Huron.”
§ Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes > 3. Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes > 3. Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 2. Materials and methods · plain
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Particles >1 mm were more easily identified as plastic, and therefore excluded from SEM/EDS analysis.”
§ Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes > 3. Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Particles larger than 1 mm can be reliably identified as plastic by visual observation without SEM/EDS confirmation.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Microbeads are microplastic by design and have similar consequences in the marine environment.”
§ Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes > 5. Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes > 4. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Stamper et al., 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“microplastic particles from sandblasting media have been suspected to pollute the marine environment since the early 1990s (Zitko and Hanlon, 1991).”
§ Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Zitko and Hanlon, 1991 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Stamper et al., 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditionaln = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 4. Discussion · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes > 4. Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 5. Conclusion · hedged
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.”
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.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes > 3. Results
“Great Lakes sample 20, collected at 42°23.62N, 79°57.21W,contained 1101 plastic particles, or 463,423 particles/km 2”
§ Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes > 5. Conclusion
“| 20 | 42.3938 | À79.9536 | 1101 | 3.87 | 466305 |”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes > 3. Results
“with particle counts ranging from $450 up to over 450,000 per square kilometer”
§ Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes > 5. Conclusion
“| 13 | 43.4134 | À82.3994 | 0 | 3.93 | 0 |”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes > 3. Results
“the samples from Lake Erie were consistently the most concentrated as compared to the other two Great Lakes sampled.”
§ Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes > 5. Conclusion
“| 15 | 41.7523 | À82.9450 | 9 | 3.15 | 4686 |”
Citations
Cites
Lost at sea: where is all the plastic?
Thompson, R. C., Olsen, Y., Mitchell, R. P., Davis, A., Rowland, S. J., John, A. W. G., McGonigle, D., & Russell, A. E. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1094559 · Cited by 7,765
Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments
Barnes, D. K. A., Galgani, F., Thompson, R. C., & Barlaz, M. (2009) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0205 · Cited by 6,126
Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: A review
Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Halsband, C., & Galloway, T. S. (2011) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.09.025 · Cited by 6,023
Accumulation of Microplastic on Shorelines Woldwide: Sources and Sinks
Browne, M. A., Crump, P., Niven, S. J., Teuten, E. L., Tonkin, A., Galloway, T. S., & Thompson, R. C. (2011) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es201811s · Cited by 4,838
The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review.
Derraik, J. G. B. (2002) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/s0025-326x(02)00220-5 · Cited by 4,042
Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the environment and to wildlife
Teuten, E. L., Saquing, J. M., Knappe, D. R. U., Barlaz, M. A., Jonsson, S., Björn, A., Rowland, S. J., Thompson, R. C., Galloway, T. S., Yamashita, R., et al. (2009) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0284 · Cited by 2,938
Plastic Resin Pellets as a Transport Medium for Toxic Chemicals in the Marine Environment
Mato, Y., Isobe, T., Takada, H., Kanehiro, H., OHTAKE, C., & Kaminuma, T. (2000) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es0010498 · Cited by 1,898
Gregory, M. R. (2009) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0265 · Cited by 1,852
Plastics on the Sargasso Sea Surface
Carpenter, E. J., & Smith, K. L. (1972) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.175.4027.1240 · Cited by 1,663
Monitoring the abundance of plastic debris in the marine environment
Ryan, P. G., Moore, C. J., van Franeker, J. A., & Moloney, C. L. (2009) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0207 · Cited by 1,565
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 901–1,000 of 1,851
Microplastic pollution in two remote rivers of Türkiye
Gündoğdu, S., Kutlu, B., Özcan, T., Büyükdeveci, F., & Blettler, M. C. M. (2023) · Environmental Monitoring and Assessment · doi:10.1007/s10661-023-11426-z · Cited by 37
“5 million tons annually to nearly 400 million tons in 2021, according to PlasticsEurope (2022). Despite the widespread attention given to the pollution caused by larger single-use plastic items like bags, research on the smaller yet more harmful microplastics (MPs), which measure less than 5 mm, only began in the earl…”
BackgroundFulfer, V. M., & Walsh, J. P. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-36228-8 · Cited by 34
Dar, M. A., Palsania, P., Satya, S., Dashora, M., Bhat, O. A., Parveen, S., Patidar, S. K., & Kaushik, G. (2024) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2024.117344 · Cited by 40
Bartolotta, J. F., & Hardy, S. D. (2017) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.12.037 · Cited by 36
“…the highest population density of the 5 Great Lakes, has been found to have the second highest concentrations of micro plastics among the Great Lakes (Eriksen et al., 2013), and the highest concentrations of plastic debris on public beaches that receive the most visitors (Zbyszewski et al., 2014).”
BackgroundNo evidence of microplastic impacts on consumption or growth of larval Pimephales promelas
Malinich, T. D., Chou, N., Sepúlveda, M. S., & Höök, T. O. (2018) · Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry · doi:10.1002/etc.4257 · Cited by 36
Metz, T., Koch, M., & Lenz, P. (2020) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111330 · Cited by 37
Microplastics in Combined Sewer Overflows: An Experimental Study
Nunno, F. D., Granata, F., Parrino, F., Gargano, R., & de Marinis, G. (2021) · Journal of Marine Science and Engineering · doi:10.3390/jmse9121415 · Cited by 39
Ecologically relevant data are policy-relevant data
Rochman, C. M. (2016) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaf8697 · Cited by 36
Tang, N., Yu, Y., Cai, L., Tan, X., Zhang, L., Huang, Y., Li, B., Peng, J., & Xu, X. (2022) · Water · doi:10.3390/w14071111 · Cited by 40
Belontz, S. L., Corcoran, P. L., de Haan‐Ward, J., Helm, P. A., & Märvin, C. H. (2022) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.113709 · Cited by 39
Tan, E., & Zanuri, N. B. M. (2023) · Frontiers in Marine Science · doi:10.3389/fmars.2023.1148804 · Cited by 41
Koutsikos, N., Koi, A. M., Zeri, C., Tsangaris, C., Dimitriou, E., & Kalantzi, O. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15069 · Cited by 35
Elkhatib, D., Langknecht, T., Cashman, M. A., Reiss, M., Somers, K., Allen, H. L., Ho, K. T., & Burgess, R. M. (2023) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.115073 · Cited by 42
The Global Trend of Microplastic Research in Freshwater Ecosystems
Wang, Y., Liu, G., Wang, Y., Mu, H., Shi, X., Wang, C., & Wu, N. (2023) · Toxics · doi:10.3390/toxics11060539 · Cited by 36
“Scholars during this stage have focused on discussing tributaries, rivers [32], estuaries [33], lakes [34], and streams [35].”
BackgroundRevealing microplastic dynamics: the impact of precipitation and depth in urban river ecosystems
Bertoldi, C., Lara, L. Z., & Fernandes, A. N. (2023) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-023-30241-0 · Cited by 33
Verma, M., Singh, P., & Dhanorkar, M. N. (2023) · Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology · doi:10.1002/jctb.7548 · Cited by 40
Ravit, B., Cooper, K. R., Moreno, G., Buckley, B., Yang, I., Deshpande, A. D., Meola, S., Jones, D. L., Hsieh, A., & 6 NY/NJ Baykeeper, 5. W. F. S. (2017) · AIMS environmental science · doi:10.3934/environsci.2017.6.809 · Cited by 35
“Samples were collected through a rectangular opening 16 cm high × 61 cm wide, attached to a 333 μm mesh collection net 3 m long and 30 × 10 cm 2 [19].”
BackgroundMethodDoes nanosized plastic affect aquatic fungal litter decomposition?
Seena, S., Graça, D., Bartels, A., & Cornut, J. (2019) · Fungal ecology · doi:10.1016/j.funeco.2019.02.011 · Cited by 34
Comparison of Different Procedures for Separating Microplastics from Sediments
Nava, V., & Leoni, B. (2021) · Water · doi:10.3390/w13202854 · Cited by 35
MICROPLASTICS IN LANDFILL LEACHATES IN THREE NORDIC COUNTRIES
van Praagh, M., & Liebmann, B. (2021) · Detritus · doi:10.31025/2611-4135/2021.15149 · Cited by 36
“Some samples were additionally treated with small amounts of hydrochloric acid (10% HCl, see for example Eriksen et al., 2013).”
BackgroundGong, W., Xing, Y., Han, L., Lu, A., Qu, H., & Xu, L. (2022) · Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering · doi:10.1007/s11783-022-1534-7 · Cited by 35
“RESEARCH ARTICLE Occurrence and distribution of micro- and mesoplastics in the high-latitude nature reserve, northern China Wenwen Gong1,2, Yu Xing1,2, Lihua Han1,2, Anxiang Lu1,2, Han Qu3, Li Xu (✉)1,2 1 Beijing Research Center for Agricultural Standards and Testing, Beijing Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Scienc…”
BackgroundResultInfluentialPollution status of microplastics in the freshwater environment of China: a mini review
Zhao, H., Zhou, Y., Han, Y., Sun, Y., Ren, X., Zhang, Z., & Wang, Q. (2022) · doi:10.20517/wecn.2021.05 · Cited by 35
Microplastic pollution in sediments of tropical shallow lakes
Silva-Cavalcanti, J. S., Silva, J. C. P., de Andrade, F. M., Brito, A. M. S. S., & da Costa, M. F. (2022) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158671 · Cited by 36
Li, J., Yu, C. Y., Liu, Z., Wang, Y., & Wang, F. (2022) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160020 · Cited by 34
Efficacy of chemical digestion methods to reveal undamaged microplastics from planktonic samples
Tuuri, E. M., Gascooke, J. R., & Leterme, S. C. (2024) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.174279 · Cited by 37
Cornwell, E. R., Goyette, J., Sorichetti, R. J., Allan, D., Kashian, D. R., Sibley, P. K., Taylor, W. D., & Trick, C. G. (2014) · Journal of Great Lakes Research · doi:10.1016/j.jglr.2014.11.003 · Cited by 35
Athawuda, A. M. G. A. D., Jayasiri, H. B., Thushari, G. G. N., & Guruge, K. P. G. K. P. (2020) · Environmental Monitoring and Assessment · doi:10.1007/s10661-020-08472-2 · Cited by 33
Sources, Fate, and Impact of Microplastics in Aquatic Environment
Mehra, S., Sharma, K., Sharma, G., Singh, M., & Chadha, P. (2020) · IntechOpen eBooks · doi:10.5772/intechopen.93805 · Cited by 41
The pathways of microplastics contamination in raw and drinking water
Oladoja, N. A., & Unuabonah, E. I. (2021) · Journal of Water Process Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.jwpe.2021.102073 · Cited by 38
Stanković, J., Milošević, D., Jovanović, B., Savić‐Zdravković, D., Petrović, A. S., Raković, M., Stanković, N., & Piperac, M. S. (2021) · Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry · doi:10.1002/etc.5119 · Cited by 37
“The presence of microplastics on the water surface (Eriksen et al. 2013; Faure et al. 2015) interferes with sunlight by blocking it, while accelerating the aging of the microplastics.”
BackgroundLin, C.-T., Chiu, M., & Kuo, M. (2022) · Polymers · doi:10.3390/polym14010198 · Cited by 36
“Close to shoreline MP abundance was higher near populated areas and areas near the shoreline [64]”
BackgroundMicroplastics in Freshwater: A Focus on the Russian Inland Waters
Frank, Y. A., Ershova, A. A., Batasheva, S., Vorobiev, E. D., Rakhmatullina, S. N., Vorobiev, D. S., & Fakhrullin, R. F. (2022) · Water · doi:10.3390/w14233909 · Cited by 40
Chinglenthoiba, C., Amesho, K. T. T., Reddy, D. G. C. V., Chellappan, S., & Lani, M. N. (2022) · Journal of Polymers and the Environment · doi:10.1007/s10924-022-02716-7 · Cited by 32
Ridall, A., Farrar, E., Dansby, M., & Ingels, J. (2023) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.114552 · Cited by 35
Microplastics in fish culture ponds: abundance, characterization, and contamination risk assessment
Hossain, M. B., Banik, P., Nur, A.-A. U., Choudhury, T. R., Liba, S. I., Albeshr, M. F., Yu, Q., & Arai, T. (2023) · Frontiers in Environmental Science · doi:10.3389/fenvs.2023.1251158 · Cited by 37
Renzi, M., & Blašković, A. (2020) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.110994 · Cited by 32
“, 2019) showing identification mistakes ranging within 20%–70% (Hidalgo-Ruz et al., 2012; Eriksen et al., 2013).”
BackgroundVockenberg, T., Wichard, T., Ueberschaar, N., Franke, M., Stelter, M., & Braeutigam, P. (2020) · Environmental Science Processes & Impacts · doi:10.1039/d0em00119h · Cited by 34
Hengstmann, E., & Fischer, E. K. (2020) · Environmental Research · doi:10.1016/j.envres.2020.109945 · Cited by 35
Liang, Y., Yang, X., Wang, Y., Liu, R., Gu, H., & Mao, L. (2021) · Aquatic Ecology · doi:10.1007/s10452-021-09885-y · Cited by 33
Nguyen, N. T., Nhon, N. T. T., Hai, H. T. N., Thien, N. D., & To, H. T. (2022) · Polymers · doi:10.3390/polym14122450 · Cited by 33
Microplastics and nanoplastics contamination in raw and treated water
Wibuloutai, J., Thongkum, W., Khiewkhern, S., Thunyasirinon, C., & Prathumchai, N. (2023) · Water Science & Technology Water Supply · doi:10.2166/ws.2023.116 · Cited by 32
From plankton to fish: The multifaceted threat of microplastics in freshwater environments
Gao, C., Xu, B., Li, Z., Wang, Z., Huang, S., Jiang, Z., Gong, X., & Yang, H. (2025) · Aquatic Toxicology · doi:10.1016/j.aquatox.2025.107242 · Cited by 37
Geographical features and management strategies for microplastic loads in freshwater lakes
Dong, H., Zhang, R., Wang, X., Zeng, J., Chai, L., Niu, X., Xu, L., Zhou, Y., Gong, P., & Yin, Q. (2025) · npj Clean Water · doi:10.1038/s41545-025-00459-1 · Cited by 35
“Manta trawl sampling was usually conducted with trawl nets of 100 – 333 μ m 14,64 – 67 .”
InfluentialMicroplastics in soil: a comprehensive review of analytical techniques
Gündoğdu, S., Akça, M. O., Gürsoy, M., Yılmaz, M., Zhang, X., Rodríguez-Seijo, A., Bibi, A., Gioia, M. L. D., & Velimirović, M. (2025) · Frontiers in Soil Science · doi:10.3389/fsoil.2025.1614075 · Cited by 39
Microplastic pollution in Surabaya River Water and Aquatic Biota, Indonesia
Lestari, P., Trihadiningrum, Y., Firdaus, M., & Warmadewanthi, I. (2021) · IOP Conference Series Materials Science and Engineering · doi:10.1088/1757-899x/1143/1/012054 · Cited by 39
“Water samples collection was done by using a modified Manta trawl with pore size of 333 μm [52, 53].”
MethodPushan, Z. A., Rahman, E., Islam, N., & Aich, N. (2022) · Frontiers of Environmental Science and Engineering · doi:10.1007/s11783-022-1563-2 · Cited by 25
“, 2011) including those from Laurentian Great Lakes (Eriksen et al., 2013) and Rhine-Main area of Germany (Klein et al.”
BackgroundEffects of life cycle exposure to polystyrene microplastics on medaka fish (Oryzias latipes)
González-Doncel, M., García‐Mauriño, J. E., Beltrán, E. M., Torija, C. F., Andreu-Sánchez, Ó., & Pablos, M. V. (2022) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2022.120001 · Cited by 33
Microplastics in Tai lake food web: Trophic transfer and human health risk assessment
Bhutto, S. U. A., Ma, Y., Akram, M. Y., & You, X. (2023) · Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.etap.2023.104206 · Cited by 31
Mishra, M., Sudarsan, D., Santos, C. A. G., da Silva, R. M., Beja, S. K., Paul, S., Bhanja, P., & Sethy, M. (2024) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-024-32511-x · Cited by 37
“These study areas include the Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Riga (Aigars et al. 2021), Dongting Lake and Hong Lake (Wang et al. 2018a), Weihai (Zhang et al. 2021b), urban lakes in China (Wang et al. 2017), Vava'u in Tonga (Markic et al. 2022), the Eastern Arabian Sea (Naidu et al. 2021), Lake Michigan in the USA (Mason e…”
Zeng, L., Yuan, C., Xiang, T., Guan, X., Dai, L. Y., Xu, D., Yang, D., Li, L. T., & Tian, C. (2024) · Nanomaterials · doi:10.3390/nano14121060 · Cited by 33
“Their errors tend to increase with decreasing microplastic particle size [25], with error rates ranging from 20% [64] to 70% [65].”
BackgroundTripathi, M., Singh, P., Pathak, S., Manimekalai, R., Garg, D., & Dashora, K. (2025) · Journal of Xenobiotics · doi:10.3390/jox15010030 · Cited by 37
“The wastewater treatment process may not remove MNPs completely [44,65,66], making WWTPs a potential source of contamination in aquatic ecosystems.”
Piazzolla, D., Cafaro, V. D., de Lucia, G. A., Mancini, E., Scanu, S., Bonamano, S., Piermattei, V., Vianello, A., Ventura, G. D., & Marcelli, M. (2020) · Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science · doi:10.1016/j.ecss.2020.106819 · Cited by 33
Adu-Boahen, K., Dadson, I., Mensah, D. K. D., & Kyeremeh, S. (2020) · GeoJournal · doi:10.1007/s10708-020-10273-6 · Cited by 25
Microplastics as a potential risk for aquatic environment organisms – a review
Hollerová, A., Hodkovicová, N., Blahová, J., Faldyna, M., Maršálek, P., & Svobodová, Z. (2021) · Acta Veterinaria Brno · doi:10.2754/avb202190010099 · Cited by 31
“Factors influencing their distribution and occurrence in freshwater are both environmental (e.g. floods, storms) and anthropogenic (e.g. wastewater contamination, road outfall) (Eriksen et al. 2013; Eerkes-Medrano et al. 2015).”
BackgroundThe Microplastic Cycle: An Introduction to a Complex Issue
Bank, M. S., & Hansson, S. V. (2021) · Environmental contamination remediation and management · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-78627-4_1 · Cited by 46
Zhou, R., Lu, G., Yan, Z., Jiang, R., Sun, Y., & Zhang, P. (2022) · Environmental Science Nano · doi:10.1039/d1en01004b · Cited by 29
Deng, C., Li, D., Li, J., et al. (2022) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155708 · Cited by 31
Simantiris, N., Avlonitis, M., & Theocharis, A. (2022) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.129349 · Cited by 33
Microplastics in ASEAN region countries: A review on current status and perspectives
Gabisa, E. W., & Gheewala, S. H. (2022) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.114118 · Cited by 32
Occurrence and Fate of Microplastics in Wastewater Treatment Plants
Ou, H., & Zeng, E. Y. (2018) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-813747-5.00010-2 · Cited by 43
Functional response quantifies microplastic uptake by a widespread African fish species
Mbedzi, R., Dalu, T., Wasserman, R. J., Murungweni, F. M., & Cuthbert, R. N. (2019) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134522 · Cited by 32
SEM/EDS and Optical Microscopy Analysis of Microplastics
Girao, A. V. (2022) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-39041-9_7 · Cited by 31
Odora, A. T., Aysha, S., Sultan, M. B., & Bhuiyan, M. A. R. (2024) · Environmental Monitoring and Assessment · doi:10.1007/s10661-024-13051-w · Cited by 30
Photoaging effects on polyethylene microplastics: Structural changes and chlorpyrifos adsorption
Santana, G. B., Conceição, K. G. A., Silva, E. M., Diaz, G. Z., Oliveira, J. T., de Oliveira, A. G., Melo, D. D. Q., do Nascimento, R. F., Prola, L. D. T., de Liz, M. V., et al. (2024) · Marine Environmental Research · doi:10.1016/j.marenvres.2024.106844 · Cited by 32
Castro, G. B., Bernegossi, A. C., PINHEIRO, F. R., Felipe, M. C., & Corbi, J. J. (2020) · Water Air & Soil Pollution · doi:10.1007/s11270-020-04845-y · Cited by 31
ATICI, A. A., Sepil, A., & Şen, F. (2021) · Food Additives & Contaminants Part A · doi:10.1080/19440049.2021.1941304 · Cited by 32
“MPs have been reported in aquatic systems on all seven continents, in both freshwater and marine environments (Barnes et al. 2009), along beaches (Browne et al. 2011), in sediment (Claessens et al. 2011), and in the water column itself (Eriksen et al. 2013).”
BackgroundWu, F., Wang, J., Jiang, S., Huaxian, Z., Wu, Q., Chen, Q., & Chen, J. (2022) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.134455 · Cited by 33
The contribution of estuaries to the abundance of microplastics in Jakarta Bay, Indonesia
Purwiyanto, A. I. S., Prartono, T., Riani, E., Koropitan, A. F., Naulita, Y., Takarina, N. D., & Cordova, M. R. (2022) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.114117 · Cited by 36
Source-specific categorization of microplastics in nearshore surface waters of the Great Lakes
Yu, J. T., Helm, P. A., & Diamond, M. L. (2024) · Journal of Great Lakes Research · doi:10.1016/j.jglr.2023.102256 · Cited by 28
Saad, D., & Alamin, H. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e23393 · Cited by 33
“…of small-sized MPs is frequently reported in different aquatic fauna in several aquatic environments around the world, including the Great Lakes in the US, the Yangtze River in China, the Saigon River in Vietnam, Geoje Island in South Korea, and the Vaal River in South Africa [33,44 – 47].”
BackgroundSize Distributions of Microplastics in the St Louis Estuary and Western Lake Superior
Thomas, A., Marchand, J., Schwoerer, G. D., Minor, E. C., & Maurer‐Jones, M. A. (2024) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.3c10776 · Cited by 31
Microplastics in lakes: Distribution patterns and influencing factors
Liang, S., Liu, J., Bao, M., Fan, Y., & Kong, M. (2025) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2025.138339 · Cited by 29
Microplastic selects for convergent microbiomes from distinct riverine sources
Kelly, J. J., London, M. G., Oforji, N., Ogunsola, A., & Hoellein, T. J. (2020) · Freshwater Science · doi:10.1086/708934 · Cited by 28
“The size and composition of the microplastic in this soap is consistent withmicroplastic previously identified in personal care products (Fendall and Sewell 2009) and in environmental samples (e.g., Eriksen et al. 2013, McCormick et al. 2014, 2016).”
BackgroundHussien, N. A., Mohammadein, A., Tantawy, E. M., Khattab, Y. A. E., & Malki, J. S. A. (2021) · Open Life Sciences · doi:10.1515/biol-2021-0086 · Cited by 29
“However, visual sorting is highly time-consuming, with a high error rate from 20% [33] to 70% [34] that increases with the decrease in the particle size.”
BackgroundLake-wide assessment of microplastics in the surface waters of Lake Baikal, Siberia
Moore, M. V., Yamamuro, M., Тимошкин, О. А., Shirokaya, A. A., & Kameda, Y. (2021) · Limnology · doi:10.1007/s10201-021-00677-9 · Cited by 30
Anthropogenic microfibres flux in an Antarctic coastal ecosystem: The tip of an iceberg?
Alurralde, G., Isla, E., Fuentes, V., Olariaga, A., Maggioni, T., Rimondino, G. N., & Tatián, M. (2022) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.113388 · Cited by 30
Vincent, A. E. S., Chaudhary, A., Kelly, J. J., & Hoellein, T. J. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155398 · Cited by 31
Akhbarizadeh, R., Yu, J. T., Ead, L., Nicholls, E., Thibeau, J., Lanisa, M., Wakai, M., Marquez, A., Miller, C., Sims, A., et al. (2024) · ACS ES&T Water · doi:10.1021/acsestwater.3c00526 · Cited by 28
Hines, E., Jaubet, M. L., Cuello, G. V., Elías, R., & Garaffo, G. V. (2023) · Marine Environmental Research · doi:10.1016/j.marenvres.2023.106104 · Cited by 30
Microplastics in Freshwater and Drinking Water: Sources, Impacts, Detection, and Removal Strategies
Chowdhury, S. R., Razzak, S. A., Hassan, I. A., Hossain, S. M. Z., & Hossain, M. M. (2023) · Water Air & Soil Pollution · doi:10.1007/s11270-023-06677-y · Cited by 35
“Additionally, microplastics are discharged into the water environment by urban runoff, spills, cargo transportation, wastewater treatment plant effluent, and human waste (Eriksen et al. 2013a; Lechner et al. 2014; Mason et al. 2018; Oßmann et al. 2018; Zbyszewski et al. 2014).”
BackgroundWhat is hiding below the surface – MPs including TWP in an urban lake
Molazadeh, M., Liu, F., Lykkemark, J., lordachescu, L., Nielsen, A. H., & Vollertsen, J. (2023) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2023.108282 · Cited by 30
Eamrat, R., Rujakom, S., Pussayanavin, T., et al. (2023) · Environmental Technology & Innovation · doi:10.1016/j.eti.2023.103457 · Cited by 28
General Introduction of Microplastic: Uses, Types, and Generation
Mathew, J. T., Inobeme, A., Adetuyi, B. O., et al. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-99-8357-5_1 · Cited by 28
Interactions Between Biochar and Nano(Micro)Plastics in the Remediation of Aqueous Media
Cairns, S., Meza-Rojas, D., Holliman, P. J., & Robertson, I. (2024) · International Journal of Environmental Research · doi:10.1007/s41742-024-00635-0 · Cited by 32
“The sources of these plastics are varied and have been seen to include trawler nets, pre-production plastic pellets and domestic waste; these larger plastics and are considered to comprise the bulk of plastic pollution seen environmentally (Eerkes-Medrano et al. 2015; Eriksen et al. 2013).”
Microbeads and Engineering Design in Chemistry: No Small Educational Investigation
Hoffman, A. R., & Turner, K. (2015) · Journal of Chemical Education · doi:10.1021/ed500623k · Cited by 28
Shao, Y., Zhou, X., Liu, X., & Wang, L. (2020) · RSC Advances · doi:10.1039/d0ra07953g · Cited by 27
Migaszewski, Z., Gałuszka, A., Dołęgowska, S., & Michalik, A. (2021) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125355 · Cited by 21
Inland Waters - Dynamics and Ecology
Devlin, A. T., Pan, J., & Shah, M. M. (2020) · IntechOpen eBooks · doi:10.5772/intechopen.87463 · Cited by 29
Siegel, H., Fischer, F., Lenz, R., Fischer, D., Jekel, M. R., & Labrenz, M. (2021) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117524 · Cited by 28
Hanslik, L., Huppertsberg, S., Kämmer, N., Knepper, T. P., & Braunbeck, T. A. (2021) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151640 · Cited by 26
Toward a Framework for Environmental Fate and Exposure Assessment of Polymers
Brunning, H., Sallach, J. B., Zanchi, V., Price, O. R., & Boxall, A. B. A. (2021) · Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry · doi:10.1002/etc.5272 · Cited by 31
Adji, B. K., Octodhiyanto, I., Rahmayanti, R., & Nugroho, A. P. (2022) · Water Air & Soil Pollution · doi:10.1007/s11270-022-05572-2 · Cited by 33
“The results were also consistent with those of previous studies on freshwater lakes, especially the Laurentian Great Lakes (Eriksen et al., 2013), Bolsena and Chiusi Lakes (Fisher et al., 2016), and Rawal Lake (Irfan et al., 2020).”
ResultChen, J., Deng, Y., Chen, Y., Peng, X., Qin, H., Wang, T., & Zhao, C. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph19158972 · Cited by 28
“Microplastics have been found in rivers in Germany [17], Britain [18], Canada [19], and China [20] in varying abundance.”
BackgroundDegradation and Ecological Restoration of Estuarine Wetlands in China
Li, S., Xie, T., Bai, J., & Cui, B. (2022) · Wetlands · doi:10.1007/s13157-022-01589-9 · Cited by 28
“As early as the 1970s, floating plastic debris, including microplastics, had been reported in subtropical gyres in the North Atlantic (Eriksen et al. 2013).”
BackgroundInfluentialCombined effect of microplastic and triphenyltin: Insights from the gut-brain axis.
Zhang, S., Li, P., He, S., Xing, S., Cao, Z., Zhao, X.-L., Sun, C.-C., & Li, Z.-H. (2023) · Environmental Science and Ecotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.ese.2023.100266 · Cited by 25
Liang, S., Xu, S., Wang, C., Ling, J., Xian, Z., Wu, H., Tian, H., Zhou, S., & Gu, C. (2020) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2020.116797 · Cited by 27
Kang, W., Sun, S., & Hu, X. (2023) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2023.119762 · Cited by 26
Microplastics in the Environment
Thompson, R. C., & Napper, I. E. (2018) · Royal Society of Chemistry eBooks · doi:10.1039/9781788013314-00060 · Cited by 34
Plackett Burman design for microplastics quantification in marine sediments
Filgueiras, A. V., Gago, J., García, I., León, V. M., & Viñas, L. (2020) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111841 · Cited by 26
Identifikasi Jenis Mikroplastik dan Logam Berat di Air Sungai Kapuas Kota Pontianak
Sugandi, D., Agustiawan, D., Febriyanti, S. V., et al. (2021) · POSITRON · doi:10.26418/positron.v11i2.49355 · Cited by 27
Metadata
- 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
- Venue
- Marine Pollution Bulletin
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-12
- Volume
- 77
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 177-182
- ISSN
- 0025-326X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2150503350
- Cited by
- 1,937
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 117 · 2025: 160 · 2024: 212 · 2023: 219 · 2022: 227 · 2021: 228 · 2020: 226 · 2019: 172 · 2018: 123 · 2017: 105 · 2016: 74 · 2015: 50 · 2014: 22
- FWCI
- 36.56
- 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
