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 1,301–1,400 of 1,851
Evidence of elevated microplastic accumulation in Pacific Island mangrove sediments
Powell, W.-J., Ford, A. K., & Dehm, J. B. (2025) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2025.118514 · Cited by 9
Izlal, S., Arif, M. S., Rahman, S., & Rhidoy, M. O. I. (2025) · Environmental Monitoring and Assessment · doi:10.1007/s10661-025-14433-4 · Cited by 8
“Several studies have hypothesized an association between population density and the local prevalence of MPs (Eriksen et al., 2013).”
Microplastics and their effects in food systems: Unveiling their human and environmental toxicity
Venkatachalam, C. D., Rajan, S., Ravichandran, S. R., Sengottian, M., Rajan, D., & Gupta, R. K. (2025) · Food Bioscience · doi:10.1016/j.fbio.2025.107847 · Cited by 10
Sherlock, C., Gutierrez, R. F., David, M., & Rochman, C. M. (2023) · FACETS · doi:10.1139/facets-2022-0034 · Cited by 9
Li, Y., Yu, H., Qin, Y., et al. (2023) · Marine Environmental Research · doi:10.1016/j.marenvres.2023.106100 · Cited by 8
Pollution by microplastic in highly crowded sandy beaches in Lima, Peru
Santillán, L., Dioses-Salinas, D. C., Pretell, V., et al. (2023) · Environmental Quality Management · doi:10.1002/tqem.22075 · Cited by 8
Wang, Z., Wang, Z., Liu, D., & Wang, Q. (2023) · Polymers · doi:10.3390/polym15183672 · Cited by 8
“Studies have shown that polyethylene waste has become a serious threat to freshwater lakes [3,4], groundwater, soil environments, and marine ecosystems.”
BackgroundOh, J.-K., Lee, J., Lee, S. Y., Kim, T. K., Chung, D., & Seo, J.-W. (2023) · Water · doi:10.3390/w15234113 · Cited by 8
Barnes, J., Balestra, B., Knee, K. L., Frederick, J. A., Landaverde, N., & Meiller, J. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e23239 · Cited by 8
Legacy of anthropogenic activity recorded in sediments by microtechnofossils and chemical markers
Migaszewski, Z. M., Gałuszka, A., & Migaszewski, A. (2024) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.172800 · Cited by 8
Natuel, F. A., Magcale-Macandog, D. B., Faustino-Eslava, D. V., Cui, L. E., & Hotes, S. (2023) · SciEnggJ · doi:10.54645/202316supbdl-47 · Cited by 8
Cordeiro, R. D. M., Cardoso, V. V., Carneiro, R. N., & Almeida, C. M. M. (2024) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-024-33966-8 · Cited by 8
“…sample treatment methods (Razeghi et al. 2022) for environmental matrices, especially WHC and freshwater, are sieving (Di and Wang 2018), digestion (Eriksen et al. 2013; Löder et al. 2017; Deocaris et al. 2019; Han et al. 2020; Monteiro et al. 2022), and density separation (Li et al. 2018).”
Alazaiza, M. Y. D., Al-Zghoul, T. M., Bashir, M. J. K., Ramu, M. B., Amr, S. S. A., & Abushammala, M. F. M. (2024) · Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.cscee.2024.101041 · Cited by 10
Li, W. H., Zou, H., Zheng, Y., Zhang, G., Xiang, Y., Zhi, D., & Zhou, Y. (2025) · Environmental Monitoring and Assessment · doi:10.1007/s10661-024-13605-y · Cited by 11
“The results indicated the average abundance of MPs was about 43,000 micro-plastic particles/km 2 , while two major cities contained over 466,000 particles/km 2 , more than all other stations combined (Eriksen et al., 2013).”
On Global Plasticity: Framing the Global Through Affective Materiality
McKay, D., Stanes, E., Githua, N., et al. (2020) · New Global Studies · doi:10.1515/ngs-2020-0039 · Cited by 8
“Recent years have seen a rapid acceleration in the deposition ofwaste plastics in marine environments, so plastic pollution has become a more pressing concern (Eriksen et al. 2013; Lavers and Bond 2017; Vegter et al. 2014).”
BackgroundKerubo, J. O., Agnes, Muthumbi, W. N., Robertson-Andersson, D. V., Onyari, J. M., & Kimani, E. N. (2022) · African Journal of Biological Sciences · doi:10.33472/afjbs.4.3.2022.52-70 · Cited by 7
Cyndari, K., Goodheart, J. R., Miller, M. A., Oest, M. E., Damron, T., & Mann, K. (2017) · Journal of Arthroplasty · doi:10.1016/j.arth.2017.01.047 · Cited by 7
“The false positives seen in the 2 control specimens were likely the result of (1) internal refraction due to incomplete permeation of the embeddingmedium, (2) fragmented birefringent particles of bone from the sagittal sectioning, or even (3) environmental exposure to PE through contaminated water supplies or common h…”
Physical and chemical characterization of dry mud propolis for natural scrub cosmetic
Sahlan, M., Fadhullah, H., Pratamı, D. K., & Lischer, K. (2020) · AIP conference proceedings · doi:10.1063/5.0002437 · Cited by 8
Khotchana, C., Phapugrangkul, P., Opaprakasit, P., Kaewpa, D., Chaiyasat, P., & Chaiyasat, A. (2021) · Colloids and Surfaces B Biointerfaces · doi:10.1016/j.colsurfb.2021.112122 · Cited by 8
Micro- and nanoplastic in the aquatic environment : from rivers to whales
Besseling, E. (2018) · doi:10.18174/441167 · Cited by 8
Abundance and characteristics of microplastics in major urban wetlands of Dhaka, BangladeshPreprint
Mercy, F. T., Alam, A. K. M. R., & Akbor, M. A. (2022) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1455552/v1 · Cited by 8
Physical and physicochemical separation of microplastics and nanoplastics from water
Estahbanati, M. R. K., Feilizadeh, M., Avazpour, S., Kavand, M., Drogui, P., & Tyagi, R. D. (2022) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-99908-3.00018-x · Cited by 10
Miller, J. R., Barrett, N., Love, J. B., Gray, A., Youker, R. T., Hall, C., Meiri, N., Gaesser, M., Randall, G., Jarrett, R., et al. (2024) · Environments · doi:10.3390/environments11110240 · Cited by 9
“…at Sites 1–5 and Site 8 (Figure 1) is characterized by a coarse-grained, gravel bed (Table 3) and highly turbulent flow conditions; with the exception of Site 7, the median (D 50 ) and 84th percentile (D 84 ) of the gravel-sized sediment exhibited only minor variations between sites (Table 3).”
Gupta, D. K., Giri, A., Choudhary, D., Vishwakarma, A., Mudgal, M., Raizada, P., Singh, P., & Singh, A. K. (2025) · Journal of Contaminant Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jconhyd.2025.104575 · Cited by 7
Parmar, J., Patel, K., Rabari, V., Patel, A., Sahoo, D. K., & Trivedi, J. N. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0325324 · Cited by 8
“MPs have been found worldwide, from glaciers in the polar region [39] to lakes [40], and from the atmosphere [41] to deep benthic habitats of the ocean [42].”
Zheng, X., Wu, H., Guo, L., et al. (2025) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2025.126813 · Cited by 7
Tian, X., Xu, H., & Pei, H. (2025) · Journal of environmental chemical engineering · doi:10.1016/j.jece.2025.119576 · Cited by 7
Biju, M. K., & Brema, J. (2025) · Environmental Monitoring and Assessment · doi:10.1007/s10661-025-14828-3 · Cited by 7
“(Eriksen et al., 2013).”
Jeylaputheen, M. A., Sekar, S., Perumal, M., Parthiban, A., Roy, P. D., Elzain, H. E., & Kamaraj, J. (2025) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2025.119137 · Cited by 7
Governance and Measures for the Prevention of Marine Debris
Stoll, T., Stoett, P. J., Vince, J., & Hardesty, B. D. (2022) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-39041-9_26 · Cited by 8
Bošković, N., Jaćimović, Ž., & Bajt, O. (2023) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.167206 · Cited by 7
Remediation strategies for the removal of microplastics from the water
Rani, L., Kaur, G., Sood, P., Kaushal, J., & Srivastav, A. L. (2024) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-15291-7.00004-3 · Cited by 8
Tropin, N. Y., Rakhmatullina, S. N., Vorobiev, E. D., Vorobiev, D. S., & Frank, Y. A. (2024) · Inland Water Biology · doi:10.1134/s1995082924020196 · Cited by 7
“A study of MPs in the neuston of the Laurentian Great Lakes explained a large spatial variability of pollution by the high population density (Eriksen et al., 2013).”
Ahmed, M. U., Kormoker, T., Uddin, M. S., Idris, A. M., Ampah, J. D., Haque, M. K., Hossain, M. Y., Siddique, M. A. B., Islam, M. S., Islam, A. R. M. T., et al. (2024) · Environmental Forensics · doi:10.1080/15275922.2024.2366772 · Cited by 7
“…population density or near metropolitan centers were likelier to have MPs. MPs were identified in the Laurentian Great Lakes in two of the study’s 21 samples, according to Eriksen et al. (2013), and Lake Hovsgol, Mongolia, according to Free et al. (2014), who reported 997–44,435 particles/km 2 .”
Microplastics in soil: a review on research status, sources, methods, and remediation strategies
Liu, L., Chen, Y., Li, Q., Wu, Q., & Zeng, Y. (2024) · Plant and Soil · doi:10.1007/s11104-024-06858-6 · Cited by 7
“These particles were initially identified as MPs by visual observation, and later identified as aluminum silicate from coal ash by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) (Eriksen et al. 2013).”
Beach wrack as a potential microplastic hot spot in the South-Eastern Baltic Sea environment
Sabaliauskaitė, V., Balčiūnas, A., Rubavičiūtė, R., Iamshchikov, E., Pinto, L. M., Tiškus, E., & Kataržytė, M. (2024) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2024.117139 · Cited by 8
Microplastic Pollution in Portuguese Saltworks
Soares, A., Pinheiro, C., Oliveira, U., & Vieira, M. N. (2020) · IntechOpen eBooks · doi:10.5772/intechopen.91476 · Cited by 7
Introduction to the Analytical Methodologies for the Analysis of Microplastics
da Costa, J. P., & Duarte, A. C. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-10618-8_1-1 · Cited by 7
Sunday, N. F. (2020) · Acta Chemica Malaysia · doi:10.2478/acmy-2021-0004 · Cited by 7
“The limitations of visual sorting include high error rate, time unfriendliness and limitation in size to be sorted [28].”
BackgroundMirad, A., Yoswaty, D., & Thamrin, T. (2020) · Asian Journal of Aquatic Sciences · doi:10.31258/ajoas.3.3.248-259 · Cited by 7
Moreno, G. M., & Cooper, K. R. (2021) · AIMS environmental science · doi:10.3934/environsci.2021014 · Cited by 7
A rapid method for extracting microplastics from oily food samples
Bai, C.-L., Xu, T., Guo, Y., & Li, H. (2022) · Analytical Methods · doi:10.1039/d2ay00792d · Cited by 6
Challenges and opportunities for microplastic and nanoplastic removal from industrial wastewater
Robert, D., Allé, P. H., Keller, N., Dzuila, M.-A., & García‐Muñoz, P. (2022) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-99908-3.00009-9 · Cited by 10
Microplastics and Nano-Plastics: From Initiation to Termination
Awolesi, O., Oni, P., & Arwenyo, B. (2023) · Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection · doi:10.4236/gep.2023.111016 · Cited by 8
Characterization of microplastic in trawl fish caught in Padang City (Indonesia) coastal area
Edwin, T., Primasari, B., & Annisa Purnama, R. (2023) · Biodiversitas Journal of Biological Diversity · doi:10.13057/biodiv/d240160 · Cited by 7
Wang, Z., Chen, H., Zhang, Y., & Wang, Q. (2023) · Polymers · doi:10.3390/polym15061429 · Cited by 7
“However, most of the polymer fragments eventually become microplastics because they have difficulty meeting the conditions for metabolism by icroorganisms before entering the ground, and polyethylene is one of the main sources of microplastics that are causing irreparable damage to freshwater lakes [13,14], groundwate…”
BackgroundCozzolino, L., Nicastro, K. R., Lefebvre, S., Corona, L. S., Froneman, P. W., McQuaid, C. D., & Zardi, G. I. (2023) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.115649 · Cited by 8
Miller, R. Z., Winslow, B. O., Kapp, K. J., et al. (2023) · Regional Studies in Marine Science · doi:10.1016/j.rsma.2023.103360 · Cited by 7
Tristantini, D., & Yunan, A. (2018) · E3S Web of Conferences · doi:10.1051/e3sconf/20186704024 · Cited by 7
Potential recyclable materials derived from riverine litter at log boom Sungai Batu in Kuala Lumpur
Malik, N. K. A., & Manaf, L. A. (2017) · Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management · doi:10.1007/s10163-017-0670-9 · Cited by 7
Cox, K. (2018) · UWSpace (University of Waterloo) · Cited by 7
Covernton, G. A., & Cox, K. (2019) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0225945 · Cited by 8
“Other studies have reported that 20% of potential microplastics less than 1,000 μm in diameter in the Laurentian Great Lakes were aluminum silicate particles [3], 42% of potential non-fibrous microplastic particles from seawater were not plastic [4], and as much as 70% of visually identified microplastics were not con…”
BackgroundSorption-Based Removal Techniques for Microplastic Contamination of Tap Water
Salikova, N. S., Kerimkulova, A., Rodrigo-Ilarri, J., Alimova, K. K., Rodrigo-Clavero, M.-E., & Kapbassova, G. A. (2024) · Water · doi:10.3390/w16101363 · Cited by 11
Kara, N., & Erkan, H. S. (2025) · Process Safety and Environmental Protection · doi:10.1016/j.psep.2025.107451 · Cited by 6
Sources, pollution, and ecological impacts of soil microplastics-A review
Wang, X., Ren, S., Chai, Y., Zhong, X., He, C., Li, X., Zheng, C., & Chai, S. (2025) · Environmental chemistry and safety · doi:10.26599/ecs.2025.9600042 · Cited by 6
Selim, M. M., Tounsi, A. E., Gomaa, H., & Shenashen, M. A. (2025) · Environmental Geochemistry and Health · doi:10.1007/s10653-025-02790-5 · Cited by 8
“Many organisms, ranging from plankton to bigger marine species, consume these MPs, which are then indirectly transferred to higher-level organisms through prey consumption or by mixing with their food (Eriksen et al., 2013; Yuan et al., 2019).”
InfluentialThe Microplastics Occurrence and Toxic Effects in Marine Environment
Yap, H. S., Shukor, M. Y., & Yasid, N. A. (2022) · Journal of Environmental Microbiology and Toxicology · doi:10.54987/jemat.v10i2.733 · Cited by 5
“surfaces due to its buoyancy properties [49,50].”
Aznares, L. T., Archambault, P., Laura, D. F., Huvet, A., Waeles, M., Gigault, J., & Paul-Pont, I. (2024) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2024.116780 · Cited by 6
Troost, J. L., Baker, S. M., Chaudry, M. H., & Judd, K. E. (2024) · Aquatic Sciences · doi:10.1007/s00027-024-01112-8 · Cited by 6
DeLouise, L. A. (2020) · Open Access Journal of Toxicology · doi:10.19080/oajt.2020.04.555637 · Cited by 6
Estahbanati, M. R. K., Rostami, S., Ghasemian, M., Kiendrebeogo, M., Drogui, P., & Tyagi, R. D. (2022) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-99908-3.00020-8 · Cited by 8
Sources and occurrence of microplastics and nanoplastics in the environment
Onyedibe, V. O., Kakar, F. L., Okoye, F. C., Elbeshbishy, E., & Hamza, R. (2022) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-99908-3.00019-1 · Cited by 10
Mangarengi, N. A. P., Zakaria, R., ZUBAIR, A., Langka, P., & Riswanto, N. A. (2023) · IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science · doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1134/1/012039 · Cited by 8
Hasteti, M., Apriadi, T., & Melani, W. R. (2023) · Journal of Marine Research · doi:10.14710/jmr.v12i3.36691 · Cited by 6
“Sedangkan mikroplastik sekunder bersumber dari pemecahan (fragmentasi) plastik-plastik dengan ukuran yang lebih besar (Eriksen et al., 2013).”
Kelkar, P. U., Kaboolian, M., Corder, R. D., Caggioni, M., Lindberg, S. E., & Erk, K. A. (2024) · Soft Matter · doi:10.1039/d3sm01198d · Cited by 5
Sources, Types, and Occurrences of Microplastics in Soil, Water, and Air
Dagwar, P. P., Saole, P., Jeevanasai, A., Raju, M. S. R., sharma, H., & Bahukhandi, K. D. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-97-6461-7_2 · Cited by 8
Channar, A. G. (2014) · American Journal of Environmental Protection · doi:10.11648/j.ajep.20140302.15 · Cited by 6
Countermeasures on Plastic and Microplastic Garbage Management
Deng, Y., Zhang, J., Zhang, C., et al. (2020) · The handbook of environmental chemistry · doi:10.1007/698_2020_463 · Cited by 6
Hunter, E. C., de Vine, R., Pantos, O., Clunies-Ross, P., Doake, F., Masterton, H., & Briers, R. A. (2022) · Microplastics · doi:10.3390/microplastics1010005 · Cited by 6
“The bulk of the research into microplastic accumulation has focused on the marine environment, and data from estuarine and freshwater environments are lacking in comparison [27].”
BackgroundArenas-Lago, D., Santás-Miguel, V., & Rodríguez-Seijo, A. (2022) · The handbook of environmental chemistry · doi:10.1007/698_2022_859 · Cited by 8
Plastic cigar tips debris: Exploring use and disposal issues for Lake Erie beaches
Hardy, S. D., & Bartolotta, J. F. (2018) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.10.020 · Cited by 6
Rhinane, H., Houssa, R., & Loulad, S. (2019) · The international archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences/International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences · doi:10.5194/isprs-archives-xlii-4-w19-377-2019 · Cited by 6
“…of the Atlantic, covering an area of about 1.296.180 km2, each km2 represent a density of debris exceeding 26,898 items/km2, 70,96 g/km2 according to (Eriksen et al., 2013), the majority of them where a plastic materials debris (6 pieces in each km2) (Ryan, 2013) coming from south of America (60”
BackgroundInfluentialSources, Occurrence, and Analysis of Microplastics in Freshwater Environments
Ta, A. T., & Babel, S. (2022) · doi:10.1002/9781119800897.ch1 · Cited by 7
Sarkar, D. J., Sarkar, S. D., & Das, B. K. (2022) · Environmental footprints and eco-design of products and processes · doi:10.1007/978-981-16-8440-1_10 · Cited by 6
Kong, X., Lei, M., Wang, Y., Ma, Q., Li, S., Liu, C., & Zhao, X. (2024) · Water Air & Soil Pollution · doi:10.1007/s11270-024-07422-9 · Cited by 5
“This result was consistent with the findings of a study on MP pollution in the Liaohe River protected area (Gong et al., 2022), while some studies have suggested that MP pollution levels are related to the distance of sampling sites from town centers (Eriksen et al., 2013; Xiong et al., 2018).”
Robson, E. L., Kidd, K. A., Sun, E. K., Gillis, P. L., & Prosser, R. S. (2025) · Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry · doi:10.1093/etojnl/vgae044 · Cited by 6
“Elevated microplastic counts occur in urban areas (Eriksen et al., 2013; Mani et al., 2015), but in our study, only Hespeler and Caledonia are downstream of larger (approximate population of 10,000– 25,000) communities and no sites were immediately downstream of a major urban center.”
InfluentialGuan, R., Wang, Q., Li, D., Guo, B., Wang, W., Li, N., Zhang, J., Cai, R., Cui, Z., Zhang, H., et al. (2025) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2025.126317 · Cited by 5
Trends and Emerging Hotspots in Toxicology of Chironomids: A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis
Liu, W., Pei, W.-X., Shao, Z.-M., Nie, J.-X., Cao, W., & Yan, C. (2025) · Insects · doi:10.3390/insects16060639 · Cited by 5
“Plastic products are released into the air from various sources [26] and cause freshwater pollution [27–29].”
Petalas, C., Provencher, J. F., Eng, M. L., de Solla, S. R., Lu, Z., Elliott, K. H., & Lavoie, R. A. (2025) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2025.139092 · Cited by 5
Singh, J., & Yadav, B. K. (2025) · Environmental Monitoring and Assessment · doi:10.1007/s10661-025-14416-5 · Cited by 10
“This trend reflects the small size and irregular shape of fragments, which reduce settling resistance and facilitate infiltration during fluvial deposition and leachate percolation (Eriksen et al., 2013; Lechthaler et al., 2021; Singh et al., 2024b).”
Synthetic microfibers driven by turbidity currents: Transition from smooth bed to macro-roughness
Mancini, M., Soler, M., Colomer, J., Solari, L., & Serra, T. (2025) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2025.118509 · Cited by 6
Natasya, A. P. G., & Nugroho, A. P. (2025) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2025.118523 · Cited by 5
Wang, L., Peng, J., Ji, W., Tahir, M. A., Wang, J., Wang, T., Weng, M., & Zhang, L. (2025) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2025.140136 · Cited by 5
de Brito, D. A. S., da Silva, T. F., Cavalheri, P. S., Canatto, A. K., Miguel, E. S. C., Filho, F. J. C. M., de Oliveira, L. C. S., Casagrande, G. A., & Machulek, A. (2025) · ACS ES&T Water · doi:10.1021/acsestwater.5c00773 · Cited by 5
Pathan, M. M., Rakeb-Ul-Islam, M., Nasrin, K., Riya, K. K., Rahman, M. M., Bappy, M. M. M., Banik, P., Bhuiyan, M. T., Albeshr, M. F., Arai, T., et al. (2025) · Journal of Contaminant Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jconhyd.2025.104770 · Cited by 5
Saikia, K. K., & Handique, S. (2025) · Water Air & Soil Pollution · doi:10.1007/s11270-025-08957-1 · Cited by 5
“Their research indicates that microplastic hotspots are situated in diverse land use regions and are uniformly dispersed along the river, contrasting with findings from earlier studies, including Eriksen et al., 2013; Horton & Dixon, 2018; and Napper et al., 2021.”
Impact of microplastics and nanoplastics on cardiovascular health
Simonato, M., Brener, M. I., Ferrari, G. M., Graves, C., Yan, B. Y. B., & George, I. (2026) · Trends in Cardiovascular Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.tcm.2026.02.008 · Cited by 6
Toxic Organic Micropollutants and Associated Health Impacts
Ijaz, M., Ahmed, T., & Ahmad, A. I. (2022) · Emerging contaminants and associated treatment technologies · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-96523-5_9 · Cited by 5
Despasari, B., Andarani, P., Priyambada, I. B., & Inoue, T. (2023) · Journal of Ecological Engineering · doi:10.12911/22998993/168249 · Cited by 5
Kumari, R. (2024) · UTTAR PRADESH JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY · doi:10.56557/upjoz/2024/v45i104057 · Cited by 5
Liu, S., Ma, Y., Liu, H., et al. (2024) · International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology · doi:10.1007/s13762-024-05789-0 · Cited by 5
“Microplastics (< 5 mm diameter) have been an ever-increasing emerging class of pollutants that have been found widely in marine water and freshwater (Browne et al. 2011; Eriksen et al. 2013; Fan et al. 2022; Imhof et al. 2012; Krishnan et al. 2023; Law et al. 2010; Ryan et al. 2009).”
Microbial Ecology in Microplastics: Impact on Aquatic Ecosystems and Bioremediation
Dey, S., Rout, A. K., Ghosh, K., Jana, A. K., & Behera, B. K. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-97-3165-7_6 · Cited by 5
A review of urban dust pollution in Iranian cities with examples from other parts of the world
Rouhani, A., Iqbal, J., Roman, M., & Hejcman, M. (2024) · International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology · doi:10.1007/s13762-024-05973-2 · Cited by 5
“Furthermore, more plastic wastes are also produced by higher density populations (Eriksen et al. 2013).”
Observation and visual identification of microplastics
Lim, K. P., Sun, C., & Lim, P. (2024) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-15779-0.00008-0 · Cited by 5
M, V. P., Vijayaprabhakaran, K., T, D. P., Anbuselvan, N., Venkatesan, S., & Meer, M. S. (2024) · Journal of Hazardous Materials Advances · doi:10.1016/j.hazadv.2024.100521 · Cited by 5
Chen, J., Zhang, Z., Shen, N., Yu, H., Yu, G., Qi, J., Liu, R., Hu, C., & Qu, J. (2025) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2025.137898 · Cited by 5
Zhao, Y., Zhang, S., Liu, Y., Li, S., & Hou, J. (2025) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2025.139951 · Cited by 6
In vivo exfoliating efficacy of biodegradable beads and the correlation with user's satisfaction
Kitsongsermthon, J., Kreepoke, J., Duangweang, K., & Tansirikongkol, A. (2017) · Skin Research and Technology · doi:10.1111/srt.12386 · Cited by 5
Rushdi, A. I., Rasul, N., Bazeyad, A. Y., et al. (2018) · Springer oceanography · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-99417-8_8 · Cited by 5
Nghiên cứu mức độ ô nhiễm vi nhựa trong nước và trầm tích sông Sài Gòn–Đồng Nai
Phu, H., Hân, H. T. N., Thao, N. L. N., Đông, Đ. V., & Hân, T. G. (2021) · Journal of Hydro-meteorology · doi:10.36335/vnjhm.2021(731).69-81 · Cited by 13
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
