Abstract

Microplastic pollution is no longer neglected worldwide, as recent studies have unveiled its potential harm to ecosystems and, even worse, to human health. Numerous studies have documented the ubiquity of microplastics, reflecting the necessity of formulating corresponding policies to mitigate the accumulation of microplastics in natural environments. Although anthropogenic activities are generally acknowledged as the primary source of microplastics, a robust approach to identify sources of microplastics is needed to provide scientific suggestions for practical policymaking. This review elucidates recent microplastic studies on various approaches for quantifying or reflecting the degree to which anthropogenic activities contribute to microplastic pollution. Population density (i.e., often used to quantify anthropogenic activities) was not always significantly correlated with microplastic abundance. Furthermore, this review argues that considering potential sources near sample sites as characteristics that may serve to predict the spatial distribution of microplastics in aquatic environments is equivocal. In this vein, a watershed-scale measure that uses land-cover datasets to calculate different percentages of land use in the watershed margins delineated by using Geographic Information System (GIS) software is discussed and suggested. Progress in strategies for quantifying anthropogenic activities is important for guiding future microplastic research and developing effective management policies to prevent microplastic contamination in aquatic ecosystems.

Highlights

  • The term “microplastic”, which refers to tiny debris of plastics normally defined to be smaller than 5 mm [1], was not widely used until 2004 [2]

  • Klein et al [55] suggested that, as mentioned above, it was difficult to visualize the relationship between microplastic abundance and proximity to industrial areas or wastewater treatment plants on a map; sample sites that were close to nature reserves had low microplastic abundance, which probably could be explained by the fewer human activities in nature reserves

  • The results showed that the percentage of industrial area in catchments contributes more to microplastic concentration, a finding that is in line with previous studies that showed that the percentage of industrial areas in catchments was a potential predictor of microplastic pollution [52,66]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The term “microplastic”, which refers to tiny debris of plastics normally defined to be smaller than 5 mm [1], was not widely used until 2004 [2]. Chemical impacts are caused by chemical additive consumptions, which are added to plastics during their production, and organic pollutants, which tend to attach to microplastics because of their large surface area to volume ratio [29]. These chemical substances can be exposed [30], especially under ultraviolet radiation and extreme heat [31,32]. Most review articles mainly focus on the risks of microplastics to organisms; the methodological progress of microplastic extraction and identification; and the comparison of microplastic occurrence, size, shape, type, color, and abundance between publications [35,36,37] Discussions on how these reports attributed microplastic pollution to various anthropogenic factors have been limited. This review aims to elucidate the current advancements in the strategies used to analyze the relationship between anthropogenic activities and microplastic pollution

Microplastics and Anthropogenic Activities
Population Density
Conclusion
Populated area
Close to populated areas areas and at the side of
Distance from the urban left
Population density
Urban activities beach from the nearest river mouth
Importance of Statistical Analysis
Urban Attributes
Findings
Future Directions and Conclusions
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call