Plastic and Microplastic in the Environment. Группа авторов

Скачать книгу

Max: 748 000 items/km² Mean: 193000 items/km² Anderson et al. (2017) Great Lakes,USA Manta trawl: 333 μm Sieved, hydrochloric acid; Subsamples SEM/EDX Max: 466 000 items/km² Mean: 43 000 items/km² Eriksen et al. (2013) Lake Bolsena, Italy Manta trawl: 300 μm Sieved, density separation (NaCl, 1.2 g/cm³), HCl digestion, NR staining. Fluorescence microscopy, SEM. Max: 4.42 particles/m³ Min: 0.82 particles/m³ (Fischer et al. 2016) Lake Geneva, Switzerland Manta trawl: 333 μm Sieved, wet peroxide oxidation; Stereomicroscope (visual), subsample with ATR‐FTIR Mean: 220 000 items/km² Faure et al. (2015) River water Tamar River, UK Manta trawl: 300 μm Sieved; ATR‐FTIR and micro‐ FTIR Max: 204 pieces of suspected plastic Mean: 0.028 items/m³ Sadri and Thompson (2014) Ofanto River, Italy Manta trawl: 333 μm Sieved, H₂O₂ (30%); density separation (salt water, 1.2 g/cm³), Stereomicroscope (visual), Py–GC/MS Min: 0.9 items/m³ Max: 13 items/m³ Campanale et al. (2020) Rhine river, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland Manta trawl: 300 μm Enzymatic digestion, density separation (saltwater, 1.2 g/cm³); Stereomicroscope (visual), ATR‐FTIR. Max: 8.9 × 10⁶ items/km² Mean: 3.9 × 10⁶ items/km² Mani et al. (2015) St. Lawrence River, Canada Grab samples H₂O₂ (30%); density separation, NR staining; Fluorescent microscope Mean: 0.12 items/L (upstream) Mean: 0.16 items/L (downstream) Crew et al. (2020) Los Angeles River, USA Manta trawl: 333 μm Sieved. Stereomicroscope (visual) 9 items/m³ Moore et al. (2011) Pearl River, China Grab samples H₂O₂ (30%); Stereomicroscope (visual), Raman spectroscopy Mean: 19860 items/m³ Yan et al. (2019) Yangtze River, China Manta trawl: 112 μm Sieved, visually screen, density separation; Stereomicroscope (visual), ATR‐FTIR Max: 13.6 × 10⁶ items/km² Mean: 8.5 × 10⁶ items/km² Zhang et al. (2015) Tamsui River, Taiwan Manta trawl: 300 μm Sieved, H₂O₂ (30%); ATR‐FTIR Min: 10.1 items/m³ Max: 70.5 items/m³ Wong et al. (2020)

1.6 Conclusions and Recommendations

      The number of studies of MP pollution in freshwater environments is growing in the scientific community due to the potential risks to the environment. The results of studies worldwide indicated a high abundance of MPs in freshwater environments. The pollutants were found in all continents of the world, from remote to densely populated areas. Although less data is available, current studies depicted that MPs in freshwater environments are ubiquitous, and concentrations are equivalent to the marine environment. MPs can be discharged into freshwater environments through various pathways such as effluent from WWTPs and during solid waste collection, processing, and landfilling. Therefore, techniques for wastewater treatment and solid waste management need to be improved to mitigate the MP pollution problems. Until now, most studies on MPs in freshwater environments has been conducted in the western hemisphere. Knowledge of the pollutants is insufficient in the other hemispheres such as in South America, Africa, and Asia. Moreover, there are no standard methods for sample collection, preparation, analysis, and reporting of MPs; as a result, data on MPs in freshwater environments cannot be compared easily. This limits further comprehension of MPs and the development of solutions to control the pollutants. Therefore, further studies are required to standardize methods to ensure consistency in monitoring MPs. Furthermore, studies of MPs in freshwater environments need to progress rapidly to fulfill knowledge gaps in the distribution and risks of MP pollution in the environments.

Acknowledgments

      This study was funded by the Asia‐Pacific Network for Global Change Research (CRRP2018‐09MY‐Babel). The authors would like to acknowledge a Ph.D. scholarship, provided to the first author by the Thailand Research Fund (PHD/0241/2560).

References

      1 Alam, F.C., Sembiring, E., Muntalif, B.S., and Suendo, V. (2019). Microplastic distribution in surface water and sediment river around slum and industrial area (Case study: Ciwalengke River, Majalaya district, Indonesia). Chemosphere 224: 637–645.

      2 Anderson, P.J., Warrack, S., Langen, V. et al. (2017). Microplastic contamination in lake Winnipeg, Canada. Environmental Pollution 225: 223–231.

      3 Andrady, A.L. (2011). Microplastics in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62: 1596–1605.

      4 Andrady, A., Pegram, J., and Searle, N. (1996). Wavelength sensitivity of enhanced photodegradable polyethylenes, ECO, and LDPE/MX. Journal of Applied Polymer Science 62: 1457–1463.

      5 Astrom, L. (2016). Shedding of Synthetic Microfibers from Textiles. University of Gotherburg.

      6 Bakir, A., O'Connor, I.A., Rowland, S.J. et al. (2016). Relative importance of microplastics as a pathway for the transfer of hydrophobic organic chemicals to marine life. Environmental Pollution 219: 56–65.

      7 Ballent, A., Corcoran, P.L., Madden, O. et al. (2016). Sources and sinks of microplastics in Canadian Lake Ontario nearshore, tributary and beach sediments. Marine Pollution Bulletin 110: 383–395.

      8 Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., and Klages, M. (2015). Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Springer.

      9 Blettler, M.C., Abrial, E., Khan, F.R. et al. (2018). Freshwater plastic pollution: recognizing research biases and identifying knowledge gaps. Water Research 143: 416–424.

      10 Browne, M.A., Crump, P., Niven, S.J. et al. (2011). Accumulation of microplastic on shorelines woldwide: sources and sinks. Environmental Science & Technology 45: 9175–9179.

      11 Cable,

Скачать книгу