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 301–400 of 1,851
Microplastics in a freshwater environment receiving treated wastewater effluent
Lasee, S., Mauricio, J., Thompson, W. A., Karnjanapiboonwong, A., Kasumba, J., Subbiah, S., Morse, A. N., & Anderson, T. A. (2017) · Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management · doi:10.1002/ieam.1915 · Cited by 226
“Eriksen et al. (2013) found an approximate average abundance of microplastics (mesh size 333 mm) at 43 000 particles/km2 with the highest abundance areas containing over 466 000 particles/km2 near major cities.”
BackgroundUurasjärvi, E., Hartikainen, S., Setälä, O., Lehtiniemi, M., & Koistinen, A. P. (2019) · Water Environment Research · doi:10.1002/wer.1229 · Cited by 252
“To date, MPs have been studied in surface waters, for example, in Laurentian Great Lakes of the United States (Eriksen et al., 2013), Lake Winnipeg in Canada (Anderson et al.”
BackgroundLDPE microplastics significantly alter the temporal turnover of soil microbial communities
Wang, J., Huang, M., Wang, Q., Sun, Y., Zhao, Y., & Huang, Y. (2020) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138682 · Cited by 230
Lakhiar, I. A., Yan, H., Zhang, J., Wang, G., Deng, S., Bao, R., Zhang, C., Syed, T. N., Wang, B., Zhou, R., et al. (2024) · Agronomy · doi:10.3390/agronomy14030548 · Cited by 255
“Several studies have been conducted to determine the presence of plastic debris in different lakes in the world, including the Alpine Lake [211], the Great Lake [212], Lake Victoria [213], the Danube [214], Thames [215], Tamar [216], Los Angeles [217], and Rhine and Main rivers [218].”
Microplastic pollution in streams spanning an urbanisation gradient
Dikareva, N., & Simon, K. S. (2019) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2019.03.105 · Cited by 223
An optimized density-based approach for extracting microplastics from soil and sediment samples
Han, X., Lu, X., & Vogt, R. D. (2019) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113009 · Cited by 220
Corcoran, P. L., Belontz, S. L., Ryan, K., & Walzak, M. J. (2019) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.9b04896 · Cited by 228
Saha, M., Naik, A., Desai, A., Nanajкar, M., Rathore, C., Kumar, M. M., & Gupta, P. (2020) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.129359 · Cited by 221
Kapp, K. J., & Yeatman, E. (2018) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2018.06.033 · Cited by 230
Wang, F., Wang, B., Duan, L., Zhang, Y., Zhou, Y., Sui, Q., Xu, D., Qu, H., & Yu, G. (2020) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2020.115956 · Cited by 229
First evidence of microplastic contamination in the freshwater of Lake Guaíba, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Bertoldi, C., Lara, L. Z., Mizushima, F. A. D. L., Martins, F. C. G., Battisti, M. A., Hinrichs, R., & Fernandes, A. N. (2020) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143503 · Cited by 222
A comparative review of microplastics in lake systems from different countries and regions
Yang, S., Zhou, M. K., Chen, X., Hu, L., Xu, Y., Fu, W., & Li, C. (2021) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.131806 · Cited by 224
Microplastics in the gastrointestinal tracts of fish and the water from an urban prairie creek
Campbell, S. H., Williamson, P. R., & Hall, B. D. (2017) · FACETS · doi:10.1139/facets-2017-0008 · Cited by 232
Schrank, I., Trotter, B., Dummert, J., Scholz‐Böttcher, B. M., Löder, M. G. J., & Laforsch, C. (2019) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113233 · Cited by 228
Challenge for the detection of microplastics in the environment
Lv, L., Yan, X., Feng, L., Jiang, S., Lu, Z., Xie, H., Sun, S., Chen, J., & Li, C. (2019) · Water Environment Research · doi:10.1002/wer.1281 · Cited by 230
Imhof, H. K., Rusek, J., Thiel, M., Wolinska, J., & Laforsch, C. (2017) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0187590 · Cited by 217
The effects of microplastic on freshwater Hydra attenuata feeding, morphology & reproduction
Murphy, F., & Quinn, B. (2017) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2017.11.029 · Cited by 217
“A number of lakes have been 47 investigated for microplastic pollution (Eriksen et al., 2013, Imhof et al., 2013, Free et al., 2014).”
BackgroundMethodWong, G., Löwemark, L., & Kunz, A. (2020) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2020.113935 · Cited by 209
Between source and sea: The role of wastewater treatment in reducing marine microplastics
Freeman, S., Booth, A. M., Sabbah, I., Tiller, R. G., Dierking, J., Klun, K., Rotter, A., Ben-David, E. A., Javidpour, J., & Angel, D. L. (2020) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110642 · Cited by 227
Huang, D., Li, X., Ouyang, Z., Zhao, X., Wu, R., Zhang, C., Lin, C., Li, Y., & Guo, X. (2020) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143857 · Cited by 216
Micro(nanoplastics) in the marine environment: Current knowledge and gaps
Mendoza, L. M. R., Karapanagioti, H. K., & Ramírez‐Álvarez, N. (2017) · Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health · doi:10.1016/j.coesh.2017.11.004 · Cited by 217
Sarker, A., Deepo, D. M., Nandi, R., Rana, J., Islam, S., Rahman, S., Hossain, M. N., Islam, M. S., Baroi, A., & Kim, J. (2020) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139296 · Cited by 220
Microplastics in Freshwater: What Is the News from the World?
Cera, A., Cesarini, G., & Scalici, M. (2020) · Diversity · doi:10.3390/d12070276 · Cited by 212
“Environmental contamination by plastics is enhanced by anthropogenic factors, such as the presence of urban centres [4,5], in particular, the low efficiency of urban and industrial wastewater treatments [6,7], use of plastic mulches [8], and application of sewage sludge to fields [9].”
BackgroundBenson, N. U., Agboola, O. D., Fred-Ahmadu, O. H., De-la-Torre, G. E., Oluwalana, A. I., & Williams, A. B. (2022) · Frontiers in Marine Science · doi:10.3389/fmars.2022.851281 · Cited by 229
The occurrence of microplastic contamination in littoral sediments of the Persian Gulf, Iran
Naji, A., Esmaili, Z., Mason, S. A., & Vethaak, A. D. (2017) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-017-9587-z · Cited by 212
“Plastic pollution is the dominant type of anthropogenic debris found throughout the marine environment (Barnes et al. 2009; Eriksen et al. 2013).”
BackgroundSelf-citationSize-dependent chronic toxicity of fragmented polyethylene microplastics to Daphnia magna
An, D., Na, J., Song, J., & Jung, J. (2021) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.129591 · Cited by 204
The power of environmental norms: marine plastic pollution and the politics of microbeads
Dauvergne, P. (2018) · Environmental Politics · doi:10.1080/09644016.2018.1449090 · Cited by 232
Microplastic pollution in estuaries across a gradient of human impact
Hitchcock, J. N., & Mitrovic, S. M. (2019) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2019.01.069 · Cited by 222
Freshwater microplastics pollution: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends based on Citespace II
Yao, L., Li, H., Yang, Z., Chen, X., & Xiao, A. (2019) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.125627 · Cited by 212
Electrocoagulation applied for the removal of microplastics from wastewater treatment facilities
Elkhatib, D., Oyanedel-Craver, V. A., & Carissimi, É. (2021) · Separation and Purification Technology · doi:10.1016/j.seppur.2021.118877 · Cited by 217
Laundering and textile parameters influence fibers release in household washings
Cesa, F. S., Turra, A., Checon, H. H., Leonardi, B., & Baruque-Ramos, J. (2019) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113553 · Cited by 215
Zhang, Y., Liang, J., Zeng, G., Tang, W., Lu, Y., Luo, Y., Xing, W., Tang, N., Ye, S., Li, X., et al. (2019) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135979 · Cited by 204
Microplastics in beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) from the Eastern Beaufort Sea
Moore, R., Loseto, L. L., Noël, M., Etemadifar, A., Brewster, J. D., MacPhee, S. A., Bendell, L. I., & Ross, P. S. (2019) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110723 · Cited by 219
Pramanik, B. K., Pramanik, S. K., & Monira, S. (2021) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.131053 · Cited by 208
Are microplastics destabilizing the global network of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem services?
Sridharan, S., Kumar, M., Bolan, N. S., Singh, L., Kumar, S., Kumar, R., & You, S. (2021) · Environmental Research · doi:10.1016/j.envres.2021.111243 · Cited by 208
Profiles of bacterial assemblages from microplastics of tropical coastal environments
Curren, E., & Leong, S. C. Y. (2018) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.250 · Cited by 200
Quantification of microplastic in Red Hills Lake of Chennai city, Tamil Nadu, India
Gopinath, K., Srinivasalu, S., Neelavannan, K., Vidyasakar, A., Rachel, M., Ravi, S., Bharath, M., & Achyuthan, H. (2020) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-020-09622-2 · Cited by 198
“…India 3 Departments of Geology, Periyar University PG Extension Centre, Dharmapuri, India et al. 2018) whereas microplastics in freshwater systems are still in limited perspective (Table 1) (Eriksen et al. 2013; Castañeda et al. 2014; Wagner et al. 2014; Baldwin et al. 2016; Anderson et al. 2016).”
BackgroundMicro-plastic ingestion by waterbirds from contaminated wetlands in South Africa
Reynolds, C., & Ryan, P. G. (2017) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.11.021 · Cited by 200
Messinetti, S., Mercurio, S., Parolini, M., Sugni, M., & Pennati, R. (2017) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2017.11.030 · Cited by 195
Makhdoumi, P., Amin, A. A., Karimi, H., Pirsaheb, M., Kim, H., & Hossini, H. (2020) · Journal of Water Process Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.jwpe.2020.101708 · Cited by 200
Kedzierski, M., Falcou-Préfol, M., Kerros, M. E., Henry, M., Pedrotti, M. L., & Bruzaud, S. (2019) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.05.113 · Cited by 204
Jolaosho, T. L., Rasaq, M. F., Omotoye, E., Araomo, O. V., Adekoya, O. S., Abolaji, O. Y., & Hungbo, J. J. (2025) · Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety · doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2025.118036 · Cited by 251
Water quality assessment of natural lakes and its importance: An overview
Vasistha, P., & Ganguly, R. (2020) · Materials Today Proceedings · doi:10.1016/j.matpr.2020.02.092 · Cited by 222
Mbachu, O., Jenkins, G. A., Kaparaju, P., & Pratt, C. (2021) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146569 · Cited by 196
Hoellein, T. J., McCormick, A. R., Hittie, J., London, M. G., Scott, J. W., & Kelly, J. J. (2017) · Freshwater Science · doi:10.1086/693012 · Cited by 203
“We assigned each plastic item to 1 of 5 categories: fragment, foam, pellet, film, and fiber (Eriksen et al. 2013).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialMicroplastics in freshwater environments: A review of quantification assessment
Mendoza, L. M. R., & Balcer, M. D. (2018) · TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.trac.2018.10.020 · Cited by 194
Miller, E. L., Sedlak, M., Lin, D., Box, C., Holleman, C., Rochman, C. M., & Sutton, R. (2020) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124770 · Cited by 202
“surface, although bulk water pump systems or grab samples have also been employed [37,54,65,66].”
BackgroundSelf-citationTrace metals in polyethylene debris from the North Atlantic subtropical gyre
Prunier, J., Maurice, L., Pérez, E., Gigault, J., Pierson‐Wickmann, A., Davranche, M., & ter Halle, A. (2018) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2018.10.043 · Cited by 196
Microplastic-associated pathogens and antimicrobial resistance in environment
Kaur, K., Reddy, S. M. L., Barathe, P., Oak, U., Shriram, V., Kharat, S. S., Govarthanan, M., & Kumar, V. (2021) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.133005 · Cited by 200
Peters, C. A., Thomas, P. A., Rieper, K. B., & Bratton, S. P. (2017) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.06.080 · Cited by 185
Influential factors on microplastics occurrence in river sediments
He, B., Wijesiri, B., Ayoko, G. A., Egodawatta, P., Rintoul, L., & Goonetilleke, A. (2020) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139901 · Cited by 187
Plastics and other anthropogenic debris in freshwater birds from Canada.
Holland, E. R., Mallory, M., & Shutler, D. (2016) · Science of the Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.07.158 · Cited by 161
Protocol for Microplastics Sampling on the Sea Surface and Sample Analysis
Viršek, M. K., Palatinus, A., Koren, Š., Peterlin, M., Horvat, P., & Kržan, A. (2016) · Journal of Visualized Experiments · doi:10.3791/55161 · Cited by 245
LeMoine, C. M. R., Kelleher, B. M., Lagarde, R., Northam, C., Elebute, O. O., & Cassone, B. J. (2018) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2018.08.084 · Cited by 199
Frère, L., Paul-Pont, I., Moreau, J., Soudant, P., Christophe Lambert, B., Huvet, A., & Rinnert, E. (2016) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.10.051 · Cited by 200
Rapid fragmentation of microplastics by the freshwater amphipod Gammarus duebeni (Lillj.)
Mateos-Cárdenas, A., O’Halloran, J., van Pelt, F. N. A. M., & Jansen, M. A. K. (2020) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-69635-2 · Cited by 194
Microplastics Pollution: A Brief Review of Its Source and Abundance in Different Aquatic Ecosystems
Ashrafy, A., Liza, A. A., Islam, N., Billah, M. M., Arafat, S. T., Rahman, M. M., & Rahman, S. M. (2022) · Journal of Hazardous Materials Advances · doi:10.1016/j.hazadv.2022.100215 · Cited by 207
Neelavannan, K., Sen, I. S., Lone, A. M., & Gopinath, K. (2021) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.133354 · Cited by 186
Lv, L., Qu, J., Yu, Z., Chen, D., Zhou, C., Hong, P., Sun, S., & Li, C. (2019) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113283 · Cited by 191
Sendra, M., Saco, A., Yeste, M. P., Romero, A., Novoa, B., & Figueras, A. J. (2019) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121788 · Cited by 182
Liu, Y., Zhang, J., Cai, C., He, Y., Chen, L., Xiong, X., Huang, H., Tao, S., & Liu, W. (2020) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114261 · Cited by 186
Transport and accumulation of microplastics through wastewater treatment sludge processes
Petroody, S. S. A., Hashemi, S. H., & van Gestel, C. A. M. (2021) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.130471 · Cited by 195
do Sul, J. A. I., da Costa, M. F., & Fillmann, G. (2014) · Water Air & Soil Pollution · doi:10.1007/s11270-014-2004-z · Cited by 200
Micro- and Nanoplastic Pollution of Freshwater and Wastewater Treatment Systems
Blair, R. M., Waldron, S., Phoenix, V. R., & Gauchotte‐Lindsay, C. (2017) · Springer Science Reviews · doi:10.1007/s40362-017-0044-7 · Cited by 181
“While SEM appears to be employed often [26, 48, 50, 64, 93, 96, 97], no studies reported using TEM.”
BackgroundInfluentialShen, M., Zeng, Z., Wen, X., Ren, X., Zeng, G., Zhang, Y., & Xiao, R. (2021) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-021-13769-x · Cited by 187
Raju, S., Carbery, M., Kuttykattil, A., Senathirajah, K., Subashchandrabose, S. R., Evans, G. M., & Thavamani, P. (2018) · Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology · doi:10.1007/s11157-018-9480-3 · Cited by 180
Chen, H., Jia, Q., Zhao, X., Li, L., Nie, Y.-H., Liu, H., & Ye, J. (2020) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2020.116073 · Cited by 176
Sources, transport, measurement and impact of nano and microplastics in urban watersheds
Birch, Q. T., Potter, P. M., Pinto, P. X., Dionysiou, D. D., & Al‐Abed, S. R. (2020) · Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology · doi:10.1007/s11157-020-09529-x · Cited by 186
“A wet peroxide oxidation procedure (e.g., 30% H2O2 with 0.05 M Fe [II]) removed organic matter with little or no impact (e.g., Eriksen et al. 2013; Tagg et al. 2015).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialIrfan, T., Khalid, S., Taneez, M., & Hashmi, M. Z. (2020) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-020-07833-1 · Cited by 177
First evidence of microplastics in nine lakes across Patagonia (South America)
Alfonso, M. B., Scordo, F., Seitz, C., Mavo Manstretta, G. M., Ronda, A. C., Arias, A. H., Tomba, J. P., Silva, L. I., Perillo, G. M. E., & Piccolo, M. C. (2020) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139385 · Cited by 175
Dalmau‐Soler, J., Ballesteros‐Cano, R., Boleda, M. R., Paraira, M., Ferrer, N., & Lacorte, S. (2021) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-021-13220-1 · Cited by 180
Advancing the quality of environmental microplastic research
Connors, K. A., Dyer, S. D., & Belanger, S. E. (2017) · Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry · doi:10.1002/etc.3829 · Cited by 172
Mofijur, M., Ahmed, S. F., Rahman, S. M. A., Arafat Siddiki, S. Y., Islam, A. B. M. S., Shahabuddin, M., Ong, H. C., Mahlia, T. M. I., Djavanroodi, F., & Show, P. L. (2021) · Environmental Research · doi:10.1016/j.envres.2021.110857 · Cited by 172
Cable, R. N., Beletsky, D. V., Beletsky, R., Wigginton, K. R., Locke, B. W., & Duhaime, M. B. (2017) · Frontiers in Environmental Science · doi:10.3389/fenvs.2017.00045 · Cited by 182
“…in widespread and diverse marine (Law et al., 2010, 2014; Cózar et al., 2014; Fischer et al., 2015; van Sebille et al., 2015; Law, 2016), freshwater (Eriksen et al., 2013; Free et al., 2014; Mani et al., 2015; Baldwin et al., 2016; Mason et al., 2016), and even aeolian (Dris et al., 2015) biomes.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialMicroplastics and Wastewater Treatment Plants—A Review
Habib, R. Z., Thiemann, T., & Kendi, R. A. (2020) · Journal of Water Resource and Protection · doi:10.4236/jwarp.2020.121001 · Cited by 177
“4 × 10(5) particles/km(2) were linked to wastewater treatment plant effluents [125] as were microplastics found in St.”
BackgroundMethodMarine birds and plastic debris in Canada: a national synthesis and a way forward
Provencher, J., Bond, A., & Mallory, M. (2015) · Environmental Reviews · doi:10.1139/er-2014-0039 · Cited by 154
“Microplastics are also used in some commercial products such as beauty scrubbers and exfoliates, thus entering oceans from both a primary source of products and as a secondary product of larger plastic breakdown in the environment (Eriksen et al. 2013).”
BackgroundMicroplastics and their potential effects on the aquaculture systems: a critical review
Zhou, A., Zhang, Y., Xie, S., Chen, Y., Li, X., Wang, J., & Zou, J. (2020) · Reviews in Aquaculture · doi:10.1111/raq.12496 · Cited by 183
Microplastic pollution in soils and groundwater: Characteristics, analytical methods and impacts
Huang, J., Chen, H., Zheng, Y., Yang, Y., Zhang, Y., & Gao, B. (2021) · Chemical Engineering Journal · doi:10.1016/j.cej.2021.131870 · Cited by 172
Gong, J., Kong, T., Li, Y., Li, Q., Li, Z., & Zhang, J. (2018) · Polymers · doi:10.3390/polym10121326 · Cited by 169
Taha, Z. D., Amin, R. M., Anuar, S. T., Nasser, A. A. A., & Sohaimi, E. S. (2021) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147466 · Cited by 173
Associations between microplastic pollution and land use in urban wetland sediments
Townsend, K. R., Lu, H.-C., Sharley, D. J., & Pettigrove, V. J. (2019) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-019-04885-w · Cited by 170
The environmental fate of nanoplastics: What we know and what we need to know about aggregation
Pradel, A., Catrouillet, C., & Gigault, J. (2023) · NanoImpact · doi:10.1016/j.impact.2023.100453 · Cited by 184
Microplastic Pollution in Surface Water of Urban Lakes in Changsha, China
Yin, L., Jiang, C., Wen, X., Du, C., Zhong, W., Feng, Z., Long, Y., & Ma, Y. (2019) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph16091650 · Cited by 168
“Microplastics smaller than 2000 µm accounted for 89.5%, which was similar to the findings of published studies on freshwater areas such as the Laurentian Great Lakes, USA [29], Wuhan urban lakes, China [30] and Three Gorges Reservoir, China [38].”
ResultInfluentialMani, T., & Burkhardt‐Holm, P. (2019) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135579 · Cited by 169
Litter & microplastics features in table salts from marine origin: Italian versus Croatian brands
Renzi, M., & Blašković, A. (2018) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.06.065 · Cited by 170
“, 2012) while reports a percentage of classification mistakes by visual identification ranging within 20% (Eriksen et al., 2013) - 70% (Hidalgo-Ruz et al.”
BackgroundBenthic plastic debris in marine and fresh water environments
Corcoran, P. L. (2015) · Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts · doi:10.1039/c5em00188a · Cited by 160
Anticyclonic eddies increase accumulation of microplastic in the North Atlantic subtropical gyre
Brach, L., Deixonne, P., Bernard, M.-F., Durand, E., Desjean, M.-C., Pérez, E., van Sebille, E., & ter Halle, A. (2017) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.10.077 · Cited by 179
“Floating marine plastic debris converges in subtropical gyres (Law et al., 2010; Eriksen et al., 2013b; Goldstein et al., 2013; Van Sebille, 2015).”
BackgroundInfluentialMicroplastic and charred microplastic in the Faafu Atoll, Maldives
Saliu, F., Montano, S., Garavaglia, M. G., Lasagni, M., Seveso, D., & Galli, P. (2018) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.09.023 · Cited by 166
Vieira, Y., Lima, E. C., Foletto, E. L., & Dotto, G. L. (2020) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141981 · Cited by 171
Micro- and nano-plastic pollution: Behavior, microbial ecology, and remediation technologies
Rai, P. K., Lee, J., Brown, R. J. C., & Kim, K. (2020) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125240 · Cited by 171
Anthropogenic particles in the stomach contents and liver of the freshwater fish Squalius cephalus
Collard, F., Gaspéri, J., Gilbert, B., Eppe, G., Azimi, S., Rocher, V., & Tassin, B. (2018) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.313 · Cited by 177
Wang, J., Zheng, L., & Li, J. (2018) · Waste Management & Research The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy · doi:10.1177/0734242x18793504 · Cited by 169
Sarijan, S., Azman, S. B., Said, M. I. M., & Jamal, M. H. (2020) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-020-11171-7 · Cited by 176
Pacheco, A., Martins, A., & Guilhermino, L. M. (2018) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.081 · Cited by 165
Skariyachan, S., Setlur, A. S., Naik, S., Naik, A. A., Usharani, M., & Vasist, K. S. (2017) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-017-8537-0 · Cited by 163
van Schothorst, B., Bériot, N., Lwanga, E. H., & Geissen, V. (2021) · Environments · doi:10.3390/environments8040036 · Cited by 160
“For instance, particle counts are often listed in items m−2 [50], or even MPs km−2 in aquatic environments [51].”
BackgroundThe micro-, submicron-, and nanoplastic hunt: A review of detection methods for plastic particles
Caldwell, J., Taladriz‐Blanco, P., Lehner, R., Lubskyy, A., Ortuso, R. D., Rothen‐Rutishauser, B., & Petri‐Fink, A. (2022) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.133514 · Cited by 162
Seidensticker, S., Zarfl, C., Cirpka, O. A., Fellenberg, G., & Grathwohl, P. (2017) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.7b02664 · Cited by 161
“The contamination and ubiquitous detection 38 of plastic particles in freshwater ecosystems has attracted both public and scientific attention.(8,9) 39 Microplastics are defined as particles made of any synthetic polymer with a size smaller than 5 40 mm.”
BackgroundSendra, M., Pereiro, P., Yeste, M. P., Mercado, L. A., Figueras, A. J., & Novoa, B. (2020) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115769 · Cited by 160
Modeling the Fate and Transport of Plastic Debris in Freshwaters: Review and Guidance
Kooi, M., Besseling, E., Kroeze, C., van Wezel, A. P., & Koelmans, A. A. (2017) · The handbook of environmental chemistry · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-61615-5_7 · Cited by 184
“Biofouling of plastics has been reported for freshwater samples [83, 84] and also is a well-researched phenomenon in marine waters [57, 58, 62, 84].”
Background
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
