Cited by 169Microplastics and Plastic PollutionPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental ImpactsEnvironmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology

Microplastics in lakes and rivers: An issue of emerging significance to limnology

Open access
D’Avignon, Genevieve, Gregory-Eaves, Irene, Ricciardi, Anthony·2022·Environmental Reviews

Abstract

Microplastics, i.e., plastic particles in the size range of planktonic organisms, have been found in the water columns and sediments of lakes and rivers globally. The number and mass of plastic particles drifting through a river can exceed those of living organisms such as zooplankton and fish larvae. In freshwater sediments, concentrations of microplastics reach the same magnitude as in the world’s most contaminated marine sediments. Such particles are derived from a unique biogeochemical cycle that ultimately influences productivity, biodiversity, and ecosystem functioning. Furthermore, microplastics act as vectors of toxic substances to invertebrates, fishes, herpetofauna, and waterfowl. We contend that the concentration of this distinct particle component is an ecologically significant parameter of inland waterbodies because of its ubiquity, environmental persistence, and interactions with key ecological processes. No environmental field survey that has searched for microplastics has yet failed to detect their presence. Standardized limnological protocols are needed to compare spatio-temporal variation in the concentration of microplastics within and across watersheds. Data obtained from such protocols would facilitate environmental monitoring and inform policy for managing plastic waste; furthermore, they would enable more accurate modeling of contaminant cycling and the development of a global plastic budget that identifies sources, distribution and circulation pathways, reservoir size, and retention times.

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 · 10.1139/er-2021-0048

Cites

202 of 203 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Published microplastic concentrations in lentic surface waters range from <0 to approximately 10 particles/L.

    “published microplastic concentrations in lentic surface waters range from <0 to approximately 10 particles/L (D' Avignon et al., 2022).”

    From No Effect of Realistic Concentrations of Polyester Microplastic Fibers on Freshwater Zooplankton Communities (2024) · cites this paper as D' Avignon et al., 2022

    Section 2.1 (p. 11) reports very low concentrations in Patagonian lakes, but also says individual samples reached 44 particles/L. The table on p. 54 lists lake concentrations up to 34 particles/L. These reported values contradict the claimed upper end of approximately 10 particles/L; the copy does not report a concentration below zero. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The low (~10 fibers/L) and high (~50 fibers/L) treatments represent environmentally relevant concentrations for standing freshwater systems.

    “We believe these treatments represent environmentally relevant concentrations for standing freshwater systems because published microplastic concentrations in lentic surface waters range from <0 to approximately 10 particles/L (D' Avignon et al., 2022).”

    From No Effect of Realistic Concentrations of Polyester Microplastic Fibers on Freshwater Zooplankton Communities (2024) · cites this paper as D' Avignon et al., 2022

    Section 2.1 (p. 11) reports low concentrations in lentic waters, but also notes individual samples from Patagonian lakes reaching 44 particles/L. It therefore supports the general environmental relevance of concentrations near 10 and 50 particles/L, but not the citing sentence’s stated range ending at approximately 10 particles/L. Section 4 (p. 26) also cautions that field concentrations from a single compartment can misrepresent realistic exposure. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
D’Avignon, G., Gregory-Eaves, I., & Ricciardi, A.
Affiliations
  • Department of Biology, 1205 Docteur Penfield Avenue, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 1B1, Canada.
  • McGill University (CA)
Venue
Environmental Reviews
Published
2022-06
Volume
30
Issue
2
Pages
228-244
ISSN
  • 1181-8700 (ISSN-L)
  • 1208-6053
OpenAlex
W3207449693
Cited by
169
References
202
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 53 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 6
FWCI
4.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environmental Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • TSpace (University of Toronto) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Microplastics and Plastic Pollution
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Pharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Environmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
Keywords
microplastics, freshwater sediments, lakes, rivers, plastic pollution, biogeochemical cycles, aquatic invertebrates, fish, waterfowl, plastic waste management, environmental monitoring, limnology

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