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.
In the paper
“Our study supports the work of Fendall and Sewell (2009), which suggested that the average consumer may be directly releasing microplastics of a size suitable for ingestion by marine organisms without having degraded to become that size.”
§ Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes > 5. Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Fendall and Sewell (2009) source
hedgedconditionaln = 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.
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
“The abundance of microdebris, including both coal ash and microplastic particles, may be a result of the convergence of currents in Lake Erie.”
§ Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes > 4. Discussion
hedgedconditionaln = 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.
In the paper
“Sewage sludge, which may contain microbeads, is often used as fertilizer in agriculture and public lands (Saruhan et al., 2010).”
§ Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes > 4. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Saruhan et al., 2010 source
hedged- 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 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
“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.”
- Also stated in: § 5. Conclusion · hedged
“we believe the microplastic spheres may be microbeads used in consumer product applications, such as those used in facial cleansers.”
§ Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes > Abstract
hedged- 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: § 5. Conclusion · hedged
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
“The presence of significant amounts of coal ash and coal fly ash in our samples from the Great Lakes confirms the importance to conduct elemental analysis (SEM/EDS) or chemical analysis (FT-IR) of debris to avoid misidentification.”
§ Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes > 5. Conclusion
boosteddirectn = 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.
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
“Hence, there are multiple point sources where microbeads may enter the marine environment.”
§ Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes > 4. Discussion
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.
- Rests on an assumption: Few, if any, wastewater treatment facilities capture all floating, non-biodegradable particulate of 0.5 mm size or smaller.
In the paper
“data describing microplastic abundance in the Laurentian Great Lakes has been limited to beach surveys (Zbyszewski and Corcoran, 2011).”
§ 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 Zbyszewski and Corcoran, 2011 source
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.
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
“showing that visual observation alone is insufficient to separate microplastic from other debris.”
§ 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.
In the paper
“during high rain events some municipalities, which have combined sewer systems, may experience combined sewage overflow (CSO) events allowing raw sewage to enter local waterways untreated (EPA, 2007).”
§ Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes > 4. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites EPA, 2007
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.
- Not matched
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
“Of the 3 lakes studied, Lake Erie is the most populated, which might account for the consistently high counts obtained for each of the 8 samples obtained within this lake as compared to the others.”
§ Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes > 4. Discussion
hedgedconditionaln = 8- 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 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
“While Lake Superior is the least populated of the 3 lakes, all 5 of our samples within this lake were closer to the shorelines (and thereby closer to the source of pollution) than was the case for Lake Huron, for example.This may explain why the average counts for Lake Superior samples were greater than those for Lake Huron.”
§ Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes > 4. Discussion
hedgedconditionaln = 5- 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.
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
“Natural fibers, aluminum silicate particles and paint fragments were removed from all visually sorted samples.The adjusted microplastic abundance for all samples is given in Table 1.”
§ 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. 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
River plastic emissions to the world’s oceans
Lebreton, L. C. M., van der Zwet, J., Damsteeg, J.-W., Slat, B., Andrady, A., & Reisser, J. (2017) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms15611 · Cited by 4,011
“…sampled rivers 7 , with studies suggesting that population density 8,9 , levels of urbanization and industrialization within catchment areas 10,11 , rainfall rates 10,12 and the presence of artificial barriers such as weirs and dams 13 play a significant role in resulting rates of river-based…”
BackgroundHorton, A. A., Walton, A., Spurgeon, D. J., Lahive, E., & Svendsen, C. (2017) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.190 · Cited by 3,756
“412 Water body type Sample type Sample location and description Study findings (reported units) Study findings (converted units) Study Lake Water Great Lakes (USA) 16 cm sampling depth Average particle concentration 43,000 km-2 Average 0.00027 particles L-1 Eriksen et al. (2013) Lake Water Lake Hovsgol (Mongolia), sam…”
BackgroundInfluentialEmerging threats and persistent conservation challenges for freshwater biodiversity
Reid, A. J., Carlson, A. K., Creed, I. F., Eliason, E. J., Gell, P. A., Johnson, P. T. J., Kidd, K. A., MacCormack, T. J., Olden, J. D., Ormerod, S. J., et al. (2019) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/brv.12480 · Cited by 3,645
“Although data on freshwater microplastic concentrations are limited, microplastic pollution in freshwater ecosystems is now being reported (reviewed in Eerkes-Medrano, Thompson & Aldridge, 2015), including the Laurentian Great Lakes (Eriksen et al. , 2013), the St. Lawrence (Casta˜neda et al. , 2014), the Danube (Lech…”
BackgroundEnvironmental exposure to microplastics: An overview on possible human health effects
Prata, J. C., da Costa, J. P., Lopes, I., Duarte, A. C., & Rocha-Santos, T. (2020) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134455 · Cited by 2,690
Auta, H. S., Emenike, C. U., & Fauziah, S. H. (2017) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2017.02.013 · Cited by 2,649
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
