Abstract
A rebuttal to “Reply to road markings and microplastics- a critical literature review” by Järlskog et al. is necessary because authors of the “Reply…” simultaneously agree with the major issues raised in the review and try to discredit it through presenting a different perspective; thus, clarifications of some key issues are due. In response to “binders derived from, e.g., modified rosin oils are still polymers” (“Reply…”, p. 3), to confirm our claim that such materials are not necessarily polymeric, we are providing a Gel Permeation Chromatography spectrum of an esterified rosin designed for the use as a binder in thermoplastic road markings. Hence, while the value of the “Reply…” is in highlighting differences in definitions, it is unfortunate that no new knowledge about microplastics originating from road markings was provided and none of the multiple research needs and uncertainties were clarified.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
