Cited by 339Microplastics and Plastic PollutionPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental ImpactsOil Spill Detection and Mitigation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Microplastic in two South Carolina Estuaries: Occurrence, distribution, and composition

Open access

Abstract

Here we report on the distribution of microplastic contamination in two developed estuaries in the Southeastern United States. Average concentration in intertidal sediments of Charleston Harbor and Winyah Bay, both located in South Carolina, U.S.A., was 413.8 ± 76.7 and 221.0 ± 25.6 particles/m 2, respectively. Average concentration in the sea surface microlayer of Charleston Harbor and Winyah Bay was 6.6 ± 1.3 and 30.8 ± 12.1 particles/L, respectively. Concentration in intertidal sediments of the two estuaries was not significantly different (p = 0.58), however, Winyah Bay contained significantly more microplastics in the sea surface microlayer (p = 0.02). While microplastic concentration in these estuaries was comparable to that reported for other estuaries worldwide, Charleston Harbor contained a high abundance of black microplastic fragments believed to be tire wear particles. Our research is the first to survey microplastic contamination in Southeastern U.S. estuaries and to provide insight on the nature and extent of contamination in these habitats.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.01.030

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 49 references

1 of the 49 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 339

Metadata

Authors
Gray, A. D., Wertz, H., Leads, R. R., & Weinstein, J. E.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Greensboro (US)
  • College of Charleston (US)
  • Citadel (US)
Corresponding author
Gray, Austin D.
Venue
Marine Pollution Bulletin
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-03
Volume
128
Pages
223-233
ISSN
0025-326X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2789237218
Cited by
339
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 49 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 7
FWCI
11.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Marine Pollution Bulletin (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • NOAA Institutional Repository (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium (E/ER-45)
  • State of South Carolina
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
microplastics, estuaries, Charleston Harbor, Winyah Bay, intertidal sediments, sea surface microlayer, tire wear particles, microplastic composition, microplastic distribution
MeSH terms
Atlantic Ocean, Environmental Monitoring, Plastics, South Carolina, Waste Products, Water Pollutants, Chemical, Geologic Sediments, Estuaries

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.

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