Cited by 29Microplastics and Plastic PollutionPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental ImpactsUrban Stormwater Management Solutions

Local Monitoring Should Inform Local Solutions: Morphological Assemblages of Microplastics Are Similar within a Pathway, But Relative Total Concentrations Vary Regionally

Rochman, Chelsea M., Grbic, Jelena, Earn, Arielle, Helm, Paul A., Hasenmueller, Elizabeth A., Trice, Mark, Munno, Keenan, De Frond, Hannah +5 more·2022·Environmental Science & Technology

Abstract

Pathways for microplastics to aquatic ecosystems include agricultural runoff, urban runoff, and treated or untreated wastewater. To better understand the importance of each pathway as a vector for microplastics into waterbodies and for mitigation, we sampled agricultural runoff, urban stormwater runoff, treated wastewater effluent, and the waterbodies downstream in four regions across North America: the Sacramento Delta, the Mississippi River, Lake Ontario, and Chesapeake Bay. The highest concentrations of microplastics in each pathway varied by region: agricultural runoff in the Sacramento Delta and Mississippi River, urban stormwater runoff in Lake Ontario, and treated wastewater effluent in Chesapeake Bay. Material types were diverse and not unique across pathways. However, a PERMANOVA found significant differences in morphological assemblages among pathways ( p < 0.005), suggesting fibers as a signature of agricultural runoff and treated wastewater effluent and rubbery fragments as a signature of stormwater. Moreover, the relationship between watershed characteristics and particle concentrations varied across watersheds (e.g., with agricultural parameters only being important in the Sacramento Delta). Overall, our results suggest that local monitoring is essential to inform effective mitigation strategies and that assessing the assemblages of morphologies should be prioritized in monitoring programs to identify important pathways of contamination.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acs.est.2c00926

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Studies have demonstrated relatively high levels of microplastics in the Toronto region of the Laurentian Great Lakes, likely as a result of discharges from tributaries that flow through areas of high urbanization and industrial activity, including several manufacturers of plastic items.

    “Our study focuses on this region specifically because studies have demonstrated relatively high levels of microplastics in the Toronto region of the Laurentian Great Lakes,35 likely as a result of discharges from tributaries that flow through areas of high urbanization and industrial activity, including several manufacturers of plastic items36–38”
  • Common microplastics found in stormwater include rubbery particles, fibers, fiber bundles, films, foams, fragments, gels, glassy fragments, spheres, and suds.

    “Common microplastics found in stormwater include rubbery particles, fibers, fiber bundles, films, foams, fragments, gels, glassy fragments, spheres, and suds (Cherniak et al., 2022; Pramanik et al., 2020; Rochman et al., 2022).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rochman, C. M., Grbic, J., Earn, A., Helm, P. A., Hasenmueller, E. A., Trice, M., Munno, K., De Frond, H., Djuric, N., Santoro, S., Kaura, A., Denton, D., & Teh, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, 25 Willcocks Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3B2, Canada
  • Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (CA)
  • Saint Louis University (US)
  • Maryland Department of Natural Resources (US)
  • Environmental Protection Agency (US)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
Corresponding author
Rochman, Chelsea M.
Venue
Environmental Science & Technology
Published
2022-06-22
Volume
56
Issue
13
Pages
9367-9378
ISSN
  • 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5851
OpenAlex
W4283310751
Cited by
29
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 1
FWCI
1.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Environmental Science & Technology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Cedar Tree Foundation
  • Environment and Climate Change Canada
  • Canadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  • Society for Conservation Biology
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Microplastics and Plastic Pollution
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Pharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Urban Stormwater Management Solutions
Keywords
microplastics, agricultural runoff, urban stormwater runoff, treated wastewater effluent, microplastic fibers, catchment characteristics, local monitoring, microplastic mitigation, Mississippi River, Lake Ontario, Chesapeake Bay
MeSH terms
Microplastics, Environmental Monitoring, Plastics, Water Pollutants, Chemical, Ecosystem, Wastewater

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