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 201–300 of 1,851
Occurrence of microplastics and its pollution in the environment: A review
Jiang, J. (2017) · Sustainable Production and Consumption · doi:10.1016/j.spc.2017.11.003 · Cited by 345
Zhou, G., Wang, Q., Li, J., Li, Q., Xu, H., Ye, Q., Wang, Y., Shu, S., & Zhang, J. (2020) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141837 · Cited by 344
Vermaire, J. C., Pomeroy, C., Herczegh, S. M., Haggart, O., & Murphy, M. (2017) · FACETS · doi:10.1139/facets-2016-0070 · Cited by 340
“Based on Manta net sampling, plastic concentration in the Ottawa River was greater than that reported in the Great Lakes (Eriksen et al. 2013), but less than the tributaries to the Great Lakes or more heavily populated rivers in the United States (Moore et al. 2002; Baldwin et al. 2016) (Fig.”
BackgroundInfluentialMitrano, D. M., Beltzung, A., Frehland, S., Schmiedgruber, M., Cingolani, A., & Schmidt, F. (2019) · Nature Nanotechnology · doi:10.1038/s41565-018-0360-3 · Cited by 351
Microplastic in two South Carolina Estuaries: occurrence, distribution, and composition
Gray, A. D., Wertz, H., Leads, R. R., & Weinstein, J. E. (2018) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.01.030 · Cited by 339
Mintenig, S. M., Bäuerlein, P. S., Koelmans, A. A., Dekker, S. C., & van Wezel, A. P. (2018) · Environmental Science Nano · doi:10.1039/c8en00186c · Cited by 348
Ziajahromi, S., Neale, P. A., & Leusch, F. D. L. (2016) · Water Science & Technology · doi:10.2166/wst.2016.414 · Cited by 348
Bayo, J., López‐Castellanos, J., & Olmos, S. (2020) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111211 · Cited by 334
Biginagwa, F. J., Mayoma, B. S., Shashoua, Y., Syberg, K., & Khan, F. R. (2015) · Journal of Great Lakes Research · doi:10.1016/j.jglr.2015.10.012 · Cited by 333
“In common with other studies conducted at freshwater sites (Eriksen et al., 2013; Free et al., 2014), it appears that the nature of the plastic pollution may be related to the usage and waste by the local human population.”
BackgroundXiong, X., Wu, C., Elser, J. J., Mei, Z., & Hao, Y. (2018) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.313 · Cited by 327
New Link in the Food Chain? Marine Plastic Pollution and Seafood Safety
Seltenrich, N. (2015) · Environmental Health Perspectives · doi:10.1289/ehp.123-a34 · Cited by 360
Potential health impact of environmental micro‐ and nanoplastics pollution
Chang, X., Xue, Y., Li, J., Zou, L., & Tang, M. (2019) · Journal of Applied Toxicology · doi:10.1002/jat.3915 · Cited by 340
“, 2018); microplastics have been detected in varied freshwater systems, such as North America, in Lake Erie (Eriksen et al., 2013) and Ottawa River (Vermaire, Pomeroy, Herczegh, Haggart, & Murphy, 2017), Europe, in River Thames Basin (Horton, Svendsen, Williams, Spurgeon, & Lahive, 2017), Lake Chiusi and Rhône River (…”
BackgroundExtraction, enumeration and identification methods for monitoring microplastics in the environment
Qiu, Q., Tan, Z. D., Wang, J., Peng, J., Li, M., & Zhan, Z. (2016) · Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science · doi:10.1016/j.ecss.2016.04.012 · Cited by 352
Gaston, E., Woo, M., Steele, C., Sukumaran, S., & Anderson, S. (2020) · Applied Spectroscopy · doi:10.1177/0003702820920652 · Cited by 329
Shams, M., Alam, I., & Mahbub, M. S. (2021) · Environmental Advances · doi:10.1016/j.envadv.2021.100119 · Cited by 346
Yang, H., Xiong, H., Mi, K., Xue, W., Wei, W., & Zhang, Y. (2020) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122058 · Cited by 335
Kumar, R., Sharma, P., Manna, C., & Jain, M. (2021) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146695 · Cited by 336
Davidson, K. H., & Dudas, S. E. (2016) · Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology · doi:10.1007/s00244-016-0286-4 · Cited by 339
“…(Browne et al. 2011; Stolte et al. 2015), soils (Zubris and Richards 2005; Rocha-Santos and Duarte 2015), and the water column of marine (Desforges et al. 2014; Mathalon and Hill 2014; Desforges et al. 2015) and freshwater (Eriksen et al. 2013; Lechner et al. 2014; McCormick 2015) ecosystems.”
BackgroundMicroplastics Baseline Surveys at the Water Surface and in Sediments of the North-East Atlantic
Maes, T., van der Meulen, M., Devriese, L., Leslie, H. A., Huvet, A., Frère, L., Robbens, J., & Vethaak, A. D. (2017) · Frontiers in Marine Science · doi:10.3389/fmars.2017.00135 · Cited by 323
Microplastic pollution of worldwide lakes
Dusaucy, J., Gateuille, D., Perrette, Y., & Naffrechoux, E. (2021) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117075 · Cited by 332
A Brief History of Marine Litter Research
Ryan, P. G. (2015) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-16510-3_1 · Cited by 394
“…media profile given the Pacific ‘garbage patch’ (Moore et al. 2001) and similar litter aggregations in other mid-ocean gyres (e.g. Law et al. 2010; Eriksen et al. 2013a), the research by Thompson et al. (2004) was largely responsible for the recent resurgence in interest in the marine litter…”
BackgroundBlettler, M. C. M., Ulla, M. A., Rabuffetti, A. P., & Garello, N. (2017) · Environmental Monitoring and Assessment · doi:10.1007/s10661-017-6305-8 · Cited by 321
Zhao, S., Wang, T., Zhu, L., Xu, P., Wang, X., Gao, L., & Li, D. (2019) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2019.06.019 · Cited by 318
Occurrence and amount of microplastic ingested by fishes in watersheds of the Gulf of Mexico.
Phillips, M., & Bonner, T. (2015) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.08.041 · Cited by 276
Munno, K., Frond, H. D., O’Donnell, B. A., & Rochman, C. M. (2020) · Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1021/acs.analchem.9b03626 · Cited by 320
Robin, R. S., Karthik, R., Purvaja, R., Ganguly, D., Anandavelu, I., Mugilarasan, M., & Ramesh, R. (2019) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134947 · Cited by 329
Simon-Sánchez, L., Grelaud, M., García-Orellana, J., & Ziveri, P. (2019) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.168 · Cited by 329
Wastewater treatment plant effluents as source of cosmetic polyethylene microbeads to freshwater
Kalčíková, G., Alič, B., Skalar, T., Bundschuh, M., & Gotvajn, A. Ž. (2017) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.08.131 · Cited by 310
Dris, R., Gaspéri, J., Rocher, V., & Tassin, B. (2017) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.009 · Cited by 337
Analysis, Occurrence, and Degradation of Microplastics in the Aqueous Environment
Klein, S. M., Dimzon, I. K. D., Eubeler, J. P., & Knepper, T. P. (2017) · The handbook of environmental chemistry · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-61615-5_3 · Cited by 342
“Higher abundances of microplastics have been detected in proximity to urban areas [32].”
BackgroundMicroplastics in the sediments of a UK urban lake
Vaughan, R., Turner, S. D., & Rose, N. L. (2017) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2017.05.057 · Cited by 297
“…to the mis-identification of some natural particulate matter and synthetic polymers (Thompson et al., 2004) especially among smaller particulates (Eriksen et al., 2013), the use of microscopy to identify microplastics has been reported as resulting in abundances that are not significantly…”
BackgroundRainfall is a significant environmental factor of microplastic pollution in inland waters
Xia, W., Rao, Q., Deng, X., Chen, J., & Xie, P. (2020) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139065 · Cited by 314
Kaeppler, A., Fischer, M., Scholz‐Böttcher, B. M., Oberbeckmann, S., Labrenz, M., Fischer, D., Eichhorn, K., & Voit, B. I. (2018) · Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry · doi:10.1007/s00216-018-1185-5 · Cited by 316
Cowger, W., Gray, A. B., Christiansen, S. H., Frond, H. D., Deshpande, A. D., Hermabessière, L., Lee, E., Mill, L., Munno, K., Oßmann, B. E., et al. (2020) · Applied Spectroscopy · doi:10.1177/0003702820929064 · Cited by 326
“8).(93) Fibers are elongated linear objects (often derived from clothing) and their shape stands out in environmental samples, but there are also many non-anthropogenic elongated fiber shaped objects such as plant matter (Fig.”
BackgroundRemoval efficiency of micro- and nanoplastics (180 nm–125 μm) during drinking water treatment
Zhang, Y., Diehl, A., Lewandowski, A., Gopalakrishnan, K. K., & Baker, T. R. (2020) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137383 · Cited by 312
Microplastics in Drinking Water: A Review and Assessment
Eerkes-Medrano, D., Leslie, H. A., & Quinn, B. (2019) · Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health · doi:10.1016/j.coesh.2018.12.001 · Cited by 299
Filella, M. (2015) · Environmental Chemistry · doi:10.1071/en15012 · Cited by 300
Microplastics releasing from personal care and cosmetic products in China
Lei, K., Qiao, F., Liu, Q., Wei, Z., Qi, H., Cui, S., Yue, X., Deng, Y., & An, L. (2017) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.09.016 · Cited by 305
Liu, Z., Yu, P., Cai, M., Wu, D., Zhang, M., Huang, Y., & Zhao, Y. (2018) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.09.176 · Cited by 302
Waldschläger, K., Lechthaler, S., Stauch, G., & Schüttrumpf, H. (2020) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136584 · Cited by 305
Microplastic pollution in surface water of Lake Victoria
Egessa, R., Nankabirwa, A., Ocaya, H., & Pabire, W. G. (2020) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140201 · Cited by 299
He, B., Goonetilleke, A., Ayoko, G. A., & Rintoul, L. (2019) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134467 · Cited by 293
Sarkar, D. J., Sarkar, S. D., Das, B. K., Sahoo, B. K., Das, A., Nag, S. K., Manna, R. K., Behera, B. K., & Samanta, S. (2021) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2021.116853 · Cited by 293
Jin, H., Yan, M., Pan, C., Liu, Z., Sha, X., Jiang, C., Li, L., Pan, M., Li, D., Han, X., et al. (2022) · Particle and Fibre Toxicology · doi:10.1186/s12989-022-00453-2 · Cited by 314
“MPs are mainly discharged directly into the water environments through sewage treatment plants [10].”
BackgroundKumar, R., Sharma, P., Verma, A., Jha, P. K., Singh, P., Gupta, P. K., Chandra, R., & Prasad, P. V. V. (2021) · Water · doi:10.3390/w13192710 · Cited by 311
Mixture Toxicity of Nickel and Microplastics with Different Functional Groups on Daphnia magna
Kim, D., Chae, Y., & An, Y. (2017) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.7b03732 · Cited by 296
Blair, R. M., Waldron, S., Phoenix, V. R., & Gauchotte‐Lindsay, C. (2019) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-019-04678-1 · Cited by 299
Anagnosti, L., Varvaresou, A., Pavlou, P., Protopapa, E., & Carayanni, V. (2020) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111883 · Cited by 308
Melkebeke, M. V., Janssen, C., & Meester, S. D. (2020) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.9b07378 · Cited by 275
Assessment of floating plastic debris in surface water along the Seine River
Gaspéri, J., Dris, R., Bonin, T., Rocher, V., & Tassin, B. (2014) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2014.09.001 · Cited by 282
“Most of this research has focused on the U.S. Great Lakes or alpine lakes (Eriksen et al., 2013; Imhof et al., 2013; Mendoza and Evans, 2013), though a few have concentrated on rivers.”
Bond, T., Ferrándiz-Mas, V., Felipe-Sotelo, M., & van Sebille, E. (2018) · Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology · doi:10.1080/10643389.2018.1483155 · Cited by 279
“…examples in literature of particles initially suspected to be plastics being subsequently re-identified as paint chips, presumably from ship hulls (Moret-Ferguson et al., 2010) or coal ash and coal fly ash (aluminium silicates) (Eriksen et al., 2013) when subjected to additional analysis.”
BackgroundScientists’ Warning to Humanity: Rapid degradation of the world’s large lakes
Jenny, J., Anneville, O., Arnaud, F., Baulaz, Y., Bouffard, D., Domaizon, I., Bocaniov, S. A., Chèvre, N., Dittrich, M., Dorioz, J. M., et al. (2020) · Journal of Great Lakes Research · doi:10.1016/j.jglr.2020.05.006 · Cited by 315
Szewc, K., Graca, B., & Dołęga, A. (2020) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143272 · Cited by 289
Akhbarizadeh, R., Moore, F., & Keshavarzi, B. (2019) · Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A · doi:10.1080/19440049.2019.1649473 · Cited by 282
“The SEM-EDX analysis is commonly used to check the morphology and the atomic composition of previously identified polymers (Eriksen et al. 2013; Vianello et al. 2013).”
MethodSources and dispersive modes of micro-fibers in the environment
Carr, S. A. (2017) · Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management · doi:10.1002/ieam.1916 · Cited by 275
“It is likely that our incomplete knowledge and limited awareness of atmospheric fibers, coupled to greater familiarity with laundry fibers, has biased source analyses conducted to date, to favor a conclusion that laundry discharges conveyed to WWTPs are the primary source of fibers found in ocean and surface-water env…”
BackgroundHoellein, T. J., Shogren, A. J., Tank, J. L., Risteca, P., & Kelly, J. J. (2019) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-40126-3 · Cited by 287
The Effects of Plastic Pollution on Aquatic Wildlife: Current Situations and Future Solutions
Sigler, M. (2014) · Water Air & Soil Pollution · doi:10.1007/s11270-014-2184-6 · Cited by 274
“Eriksen et al. (2013) suspected many of the microplastics collected to be polyethylene and polypropylene microbeads from facial cleansers and other personal care products.”
BackgroundInfluentialMicroplastics in the commercial seaweed nori
Li, Q., Feng, Z., Zhang, T., Ma, C., & Shi, H. (2020) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122060 · Cited by 287
Imhof, H. K., Sigl, R., Brauer, E., Feyl, S., Giesemann, P., Klink, S., Leupolz, K., Löder, M. G. J., Löschel, L. A., Missun, J., et al. (2017) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.01.010 · Cited by 271
Kawecki, D., & Nowack, B. (2019) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.9b02900 · Cited by 285
Things we know and don’t know about nanoplastic in the environment
Wagner, S., & Reemtsma, T. (2019) · Nature Nanotechnology · doi:10.1038/s41565-019-0424-z · Cited by 275
Microplastics increase impact of treated wastewater on freshwater microbial community
Eckert, E. M., Cesare, A. D., Kettner, M. T., Arias-Andrés, M., Fontaneto, D., Grossart, H., & Corno, G. (2017) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2017.11.070 · Cited by 275
Peng, J., Wang, J., & Cai, L. (2017) · Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management · doi:10.1002/ieam.1912 · Cited by 278
“2014), freshwater lakes (Faure et al. 2012; Eriksen et al. 2013), rivers (Moore et al.”
BackgroundInfluentialMicroplastics in the Marine Environment: Sources, Fates, Impacts and Microbial Degradation
Yang, H., Chen, G., & Wang, J. (2021) · Toxics · doi:10.3390/toxics9020041 · Cited by 307
Chang, M. (2015) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.10.074 · Cited by 265
Distribution of microplastics in surface water and sediments of Qin river in Beibu Gulf, China
Zhang, L., Liu, J., Xie, Y., Zhong, S., Yang, B., Lu, D., & Zhong, Q. (2019) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135176 · Cited by 263
Wang, G., Lu, J., Li, W., Ning, J., Zhou, L., Tong, Y., Liu, Z., Zhou, H.-J., & Xiayihazi, N. (2020) · Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety · doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.111477 · Cited by 265
Wen, X., Du, C., Xu, P., Zeng, G., Huang, D., Yin, L., Yin, Q., Hu, L., Wan, J., Zhang, J., et al. (2018) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.09.043 · Cited by 269
Nanoplastics and marine organisms: What has been studied?
Ferreira, I. J., Venâncio, C., Lopes, I., & Oliveira, M. (2019) · Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.etap.2019.01.006 · Cited by 266
Guilhermino, L. M., Vieira, L. R., Ribeiro, D., Tavares, A. S., Cardoso, V., Alves, A., & Almeida, J. M. (2017) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.020 · Cited by 261
Khan, F. R., Syberg, K., Shashoua, Y., & Bury, N. R. (2015) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2015.06.009 · Cited by 268
“composition to beads commonly used in commercial products (Eriksen et al., 2013).”
BackgroundInfluentialYokota, K., Waterfield, H., Hastings, C., Davidson, E., Kwietniewski, E., & Wells, B. (2017) · Limnology and Oceanography Letters · doi:10.1002/lol2.10040 · Cited by 267
Microplastics and Nanoplastics in the Freshwater and Terrestrial Environment: A Review
Boyle, K., & Örmeci, B. (2020) · Water · doi:10.3390/w12092633 · Cited by 274
“Additionally, with visual identification there is a much greater risk of misidentifying natural particles, such as aluminum silicate (from coal ash) [77], quartz or calcium carbonate [96] and steric acid and castor oil [53], as microplastics.”
BackgroundInfluentialMicroplastics in the wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs): Occurrence and removal
Xu, X., Jian, Y., Xue, Y., Hou, Q., & Wang, L. (2019) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.06.197 · Cited by 261
Fu, Z., & Wang, J. (2019) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.167 · Cited by 251
Tien, C., Wang, Z., & Chen, C. S. (2020) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114962 · Cited by 257
Cui, R., Kim, S. W., & An, Y. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-12299-2 · Cited by 270
Biofilm facilitates metal accumulation onto microplastics in estuarine waters
Richard, H., Carpenter, E. J., Komada, T., Palmer, P. T., & Rochman, C. M. (2019) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.331 · Cited by 272
Release of polyester and cotton fibers from textiles in machine washings
Sillanpää, M., & Sainio, P. (2017) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-017-9621-1 · Cited by 277
Microfiber release from different fabrics during washing
Yang, L., Qiao, F., Lei, K., Li, H., Kang, Y., Cui, S., & An, L. (2019) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2019.03.011 · Cited by 268
Advances and challenges of microplastic pollution in freshwater ecosystems: A UK perspective
Meng, Y., Kelly, F. J., & Wright, S. (2019) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113445 · Cited by 266
Airborne emissions of microplastic fibres from domestic laundry dryers
O’Brien, S., Okoffo, E. D., O'Brien, J. W., Ribeiro, F., Wang, X., Wright, S., Samanipour, S., Rauert, C., Toapanta, T. Y. A., Albarracin, R., et al. (2020) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141175 · Cited by 269
“, 2014), freshwater lakes (EerkesMedrano et al., n.d.; Eriksen et al., 2013; Gasperi et al., 2014), freshwater sediments (Horton et al.”
Effects of seasonal variation and resuspension on microplastics in river sediments
Xia, F., Yao, Q., Zhang, J., & Wang, D. (2021) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117403 · Cited by 254
Wagner, J., Wang, Z.-M., Ghosal, S., Rochman, C. M., Gassel, M., & Wall, S. M. (2016) · Analytical Methods · doi:10.1039/c6ay02396g · Cited by 247
Elkhatib, D., & Oyanedel-Craver, V. A. (2020) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.9b06672 · Cited by 259
Superimposed microplastic pollution in a coastal metropolis
Su, L., Sharp, S. M., Pettigrove, V. J., Craig, N. J., Nan, B., Du, F., & Shi, H. (2019) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2019.115140 · Cited by 248
“6), although regional population size has often been proposed as an indicator of microplastic emission level (Eriksen et al., 2013; Yonkos et al., 2014).”
BackgroundLu, H.-C., Ziajahromi, S., Neale, P. A., & Leusch, F. D. L. (2021) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146693 · Cited by 258
Distribution, abundance and risks of microplastics in the environment
Yu, Q., Hu, X., Yang, B., Zhang, G., Jian, W., & Ling, W. (2020) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.126059 · Cited by 247
Lechner, A., & Ramler, D. (2015) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2015.02.019 · Cited by 241
Wang, Z., Su, B., Xu, X., Di, D., Huang, H., Mei, K., Dahlgren, R. A., Zhang, M., & Shang, X. (2018) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2018.07.050 · Cited by 243
Retention of microplastics in sediments of urban and highway stormwater retention ponds
Liu, F., Vianello, A., & Vollertsen, J. (2019) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113335 · Cited by 259
Microplastic sampling techniques in freshwaters and sediments: a review
Razeghi, N., Hamidian, A. H., Wu, C., Zhang, Y., & Yang, M. (2021) · Environmental Chemistry Letters · doi:10.1007/s10311-021-01227-6 · Cited by 243
“…Great Lakes ( Lakes Superior, Huron and Erie), USA Manta trawl with a rectangular opening 16 cm high 9 61 cm wide, and a 3 m long, 333 lm mesh size Pellets, 0.355–0.999 mm Eriksen et al. (2013) Table 1 (continued) Study compartment Number Study area Sampling tools Dominant…”
BackgroundInfluentialJaikumar, G., Brun, N. R., Vijver, M. G., & Bosker, T. (2019) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2019.03.085 · Cited by 238
Identification and visualisation of microplastics by Raman mapping
Sobhani, Z., Amin, M. A., Naidu, R., Megharaj, M., & Fang, C. (2019) · Analytica Chimica Acta · doi:10.1016/j.aca.2019.05.021 · Cited by 245
Campanale, C., Savino, I., Pojar, I., Massarelli, C., & Uricchio, V. F. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12176755 · Cited by 259
“These methods are based on the use of manta and neuston nets, usually with a mesh size of 300–500 μm [11,13,38], equal to the size limit of MPs suggested by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of USA (NOAA) [39].”
MethodRemoval of micron-sized microplastic particles from simulated drinking water via alum coagulation
Skaf, D. W., Punzi, V. L., Rolle, J. T., & Kleinberg, K. A. (2019) · Chemical Engineering Journal · doi:10.1016/j.cej.2019.123807 · Cited by 239
Anderson, A. G., Grose, J., Pahl, S., Thompson, R. C., & Wyles, K. J. (2016) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.10.048 · Cited by 235
“There is growing evidence about the potential for microplastics to cause harm in the environment, and so the use of plastic microbeads in consumer products such as facial scrubs has recently attracted widespread scientific attention, and it has been suggested they pose a threat to the marine environment (Eriksen et al…”
BackgroundMicroplastic surface properties affect bacterial colonization in freshwater
Hossain, M. R., Jiang, M., Wei, Q., & Leff, L. G. (2018) · Journal of Basic Microbiology · doi:10.1002/jobm.201800174 · Cited by 234
McDevitt, J. P., Criddle, C. S., Morse, M., Hale, R. C., Bott, C. B., & Rochman, C. M. (2017) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.6b05812 · Cited by 245
The Anthropocene as a Geological Time Unit
Zalasiewicz, J., Waters, C. N., Williams, M., & Fairchild, I. J. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108621359 · Cited by 349
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
