Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Why Microplastics Are Exceptional Contaminants?

Written By

Dalia Saad

Submitted: 12 October 2022 Reviewed: 28 November 2022 Published: 02 March 2023

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.109173

From the Edited Volume

Advances and Challenges in Microplastics

Edited by El-Sayed Salama

Chapter metrics overview

128 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

Due to the heterogeneous nature of the physiochemical properties of microplastics (MPs), their behaviour in the environment is quite complex compared to other contaminants. The variety of polymers, wide range of sizes, variable shapes and numerous colours influence their mobility, transport and distribution in the different environmental compartments. For example, different shapes and sizes are distributed differently, which influence their bioavailability and ecological impacts. The uptake of MPs by aquatic biota also depends, among others, on their characteristics. This book chapter aims to discuss the ecological and toxicological impacts of MPs in relation to their physical and chemical properties. The chapter starts with a brief introduction explaining the uniqueness of MPs as emerging contaminants and a driver of environmental change. The following two sections then provide deeper insights into their ecological impact at all levels of the ecosystem and highlight the complexity associated with their toxicological effects. Finally, the last section provides more discussion about their properties in the context of their environmental behaviour, fate, bioavailability and toxicity.

Keywords

  • microplastics
  • physiochemical properties
  • behaviour
  • bioavailability
  • toxicity

1. Introduction

Plastic pollution was one of the biggest environmental challenges until the discovery of microplastics (MPs) in the early 21st century. While plastics are easily visible and their environmental impacts are well documented, MPs are not visible and their ecological impacts are less understood [1].

MPs are exceptional pollutants with a broad range of individual properties. For instance, they are made of different polymers with different densities and chemical compositions (there are currently more than 5,300 types of synthetic polymers); they exist in variable shapes (fibres, fragments, foams, films, spheres, flakes, foils, sheets and granules) and are found in a wide range of sizes. These heterogeneous properties result in heterogeneous behaviour, fates and effects that are far more complex compared to other environmental pollutants. To add to this complexity, their properties and behaviour can also change over time, thus their ecological effects [1, 2, 3].

According to their physio-chemical properties, MPs are distributed differently in aquatic environments, which makes them available for uptake by a wide range of aquatic biota including plants. MPs are reported to interact with aquatic plants and accumulate into plants’ tissues. This enables them to penetrate aquatic food webs at multiple trophic levels and ecological niches. Yet, the degree and type of effects that they cause when consumed by organisms depend on their properties including polymer type, size, shape and colour, as well as their constituent chemicals [4, 5, 6, 7, 8].

Due to their greater surface area, MPs have a propensity to adsorb other pollutants such as metals, pharmaceuticals and persistent organic pollutants (POPs). They also host pathogens, such as bacteria and viruses, thus, providing an additional pathway of exposure of aquatic species to contaminants. In other words, MPs can serve as a micro-vector for a mix of toxic chemicals and pathogens [9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14].

Advertisement

2. Ecological impact

Over the years, several studies across the globe have reported MPs in different environmental compartments including rivers, lakes, estuaries, oceans, harbours, groundwater and in the atmosphere, as well as in Antarctica. Once they enter the environment, their residence time lasts for decades due to their low degradation rates, resulting in long-lasting impacts [15, 16, 17, 18, 19].

In natural environments, MPs are exposed to a variety of degradation processes through different environmental conditions including weathering, biodegradation, oxidation, mechanical forces and phytodegradation. Phytodegradation of MPs is reported to produce greenhouse gases (GHGs), mostly, methane and ethylene, thus, contributing to climate change. The emission of GHGs by the degradation of MPs is relatively low, however, with continuous degradation, the same amount of MPs may release more GHGs over time [20, 21, 22, 23].

In the atmosphere, MPs can be transported with winds around the earth. Airborne MPs may influence earth’s climate by scattering and absorbing solar and terrestrial radiation, leading to atmospheric warming or cooling depending on particle size, shape and composition. However, the radiative effects of airborne MPs on climate are less understood [22, 24].

In marine environments, the widespread of MPs affects the light transmission, thereby influencing the efficiency of phytoplankton photosynthesis, which impacts both their growth and role in balancing the marine environment. Studies have shown that the photosynthetic rate of phytoplankton (Dunaliella tertiolecta) is reduced by 45% after being exposed to MPs. Additionally, MPs may influence the circulation of organic matter and nutrients, which affects the carbon stock of ocean [25].

In terrestrial ecosystems, MPs can cause significant environmental changes with potential consequences on soil function, plant growth, soil biota and microbial communities; ultimately, MPs have the potential to impact the biodiversity. When dispersing in the soil matrices, MPs form aggregates and cause alteration in the physical properties of the soil, including water holding capacity, soil bulk density and soil structures. For example, MPs can create channels for water movement in the soil, thus, accelerating the evaporation of soil water. This further leads to destruction in the soil structure, which may result in desiccation cracking on the soil surface. The impact of MPs on the soil is not limited to the physical properties, MPs can also affect soil chemistry, for instance, by altering the levels of dissolved organic carbon, phosphorus, and nitrogen. This leads to changes in the nutrient cycling processes in the soil. There is also a growing body of evidence suggesting that MPs can affect soil-plant interactions, which in turn impacts plant growth. Several studies have reported significant changes in plant biomass, leaf and root traits and tissue elemental composition [26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36]. In short, MPs have profound effects on the ecosystem at all levels (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Ecological impacts of MPs. Source: Shen et al. [20].

Advertisement

3. Toxicity

The toxicity of MPs comes from (i) their chemical constituents, which include both the polymers (polyaromatic hydrocarbon) and the chemical additives; (ii) the environmental pollutants adsorb onto their surfaces; (iii) pathogens colonized onto their surfaces.

During plastic processing and manufacturing, a variety of chemicals are added to enhance/adjust their properties and to make them into materials fit for intended purposes. Most of these chemicals are toxic and harmful to the environment, such as dyes, phthalates, flame retardants, pigments and stabilizers. Some of these additives tend not to be strongly bound within the matrix of the polymer and they can potentially desorb and be leached out into the host environment [37, 38, 39].

On the other hand, due to their small size and greater surface area, MPs have a tendency to adsorb wide range of contaminants from the surrounding media. Pollutants such as persistent organic pollutants (POPs), metals, pesticides and pharmaceuticals are readily bound to MPs. In natural environments, and depending on the prevailing environmental conditions, MPs may act as a sponge removing and/or concentrating these contaminants. It is reported that the concentrations of contaminants on the surface of MPs may reach up to 100-fold higher than the concentrations reported in the surrounding media. Once MPs are ingested, these concentrated contaminants can be released inside organisms. Arguably, the virgin MPs will release plastic additives, while the aged MPs will most likely release adsorbed pollutants. Most of these chemicals are reported to be toxic; for instance, POPs are known to be carcinogenic, while metals are known as endocrine disruptors. Additionally, in aquatic environments, MPs are susceptible to biofouling different pathogens/microbial organisms including fungi, bacteria and algae colonize MPs’ surfaces and form biofilms. Therefore, MPs act as carriers or micro-vector for transporting a complex mixture of contaminants (Figure 2). The leaching of additives from plastic combined with the chemicals adsorbed to plastic renders MPs a ‘cocktail’ of toxic contaminants. When particles containing adsorbed chemicals are ingested by an organism, pollutants can be released [9, 10, 11, 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47].

Figure 2.

Interaction of MPs with co-existing pollutants. Source: Wang et al. [40].

The toxicological effects of the uptake of MPs by several aquatic biotas are reported in a variety of exposure studies, including both physical and bio-chemical changes. For instance, MPs were observed to cause oxidative stress, immune destruction and alterations in the level of enzyme activity, tissue morphologies, kidney functions, gene expression and the total protein and glucose. Further, MPs may inhibit weight gain and growth. This, in addition to physical changes, such as abnormally impaired movement coordination, increased respiration and abnormal swimming patterns [48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53].

Advertisement

4. Characteristics of MPs: implications on their behaviour, bioavailability and toxicity

The unique nature of MPs is clearly illustrated in comparison with other environmental pollutants. While toxicity of other contaminants is merely dependent on their composition, that of MPs is more complex. The toxicity of MPs includes the particle-related toxicity, which is driven by size, shape, colour and the polymer type; and the chemical toxicity, which is driven by adsorption-desorption kinetics of additives, and co-existing pollutants [6]. This section reviews the implications of MPs’ characteristics in their behaviour and fate, and further highlights the consequences of these implications on their bioavailability and potential toxicity.

4.1 Size

The size of MPs influences their distribution in the environment, dispersal in water column, magnitude of buoyant, biofilm formation and sedimentation. It also determines the extent of their impacts on soil properties, bioavailability, plant growth, GHGs emission rates and their potential health risks [21, 54, 55, 56].

For instance, their impact on the climate depends to a great extent on their size. For example, the larger surface area of the small-sized MPs increases the emission rate of GHGs. Meaning, with the frequent degradation of MPs, the very same amount of MPs will continue to release more and more GHGs [23, 24].

In terrestrial environment, small-sized MPs are more likely to block soil micropores, absorb by plants and be consumed by soil organisms compared to larger MPs. In addition, they are transported through the soil to groundwater more easily than larger MPs [57].

In aquatic systems, the size range of MPs overlaps with the preferred particle size ingested by a wide range of aquatic biota, including filters, detritus and suspension feeders. In addition, some organisms such as diatoms can aggregate on the surfaces of small-sized MPs and construct biofilms that could be attractive to organisms causing a higher probability of being mistakenly ingested. Smaller MPs generally have larger surface area, which makes them a good carrier for other pollutants such as heavy metals [5, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62].

In terms of toxicity, pollutants’ adsorption and release from MPs depend, among other parameters, on the total surface area and thus on the size of the particles. The greater surface area of small-sized MPs thus facilitates the adsorption of other pollutants from the surrounding environment, resulting in additional health risks [63]. Consequently, small-sized MPs are considered to be more harmful to aquatic organisms. Hamed et al. [51] examined the effects of varying sizes of MPs in fish, and they observed toxicological effects including oxidative stress, biochemical changes and immune destruction. These toxicological effects were found to be augmented with decreasing MP size, thus, implying a direct correlation between the toxicity of MPs and their size. Additionally, the small size may facilitate their translocation into other organs. For instance, MPs have been reported in tissues, muscles and organs, confirming their ability to be translocated into these parts of the body, and it was noted that translocation rates increased with decreasing particle size [64, 65, 66]. This represents higher potential for health risks and higher level of toxicity if small MPs are regularly translocated into other parts of the body.

4.2 Shape

MPs’ shape is a key attribute affecting their behaviour in the environment. It influences biofouling, rising and fall velocities and drag force. Thus, the shape plays a significant role in the sedimentation of MPs [67, 68, 69]. The shape of MPs is also important with regards to their impact on soil properties.

Some studies have suggested that MPs with different shapes may affect soil properties differently. For instance, fibres and films may have more significant effects on soil properties compared to beads and spheres [57, 70, 71]. This was explained by Rillig et al. [72] that the pollutants with dissimilar shapes to soil particles may have stronger effects. This was further supported by Lozano et al. [57]; they reported different effects on soil based on different shapes. They observed different effects caused by different shapes; according to their findings, fibres increased water-holding capacity, films decreased soil bulk density, while foams and fragments increased soil aeration and porosity.

In terms of bioavailability and toxicity, the shape of MPs is essential to prey perception by visual predator and the preference for certain MP shapes by several aquatic organisms have been reported in several studies. For instance, Saad et al. [5] and Yuan et al. [73] observed that common carp fish and goldfish preferably consumed fibrous MPs in the presence of other shapes, whereas, Hurley et al. [74] and Schessl et al. [75] reported an absence of pellets in the freshwater worm Tubifex tubifex and bivalves (Dreissena polymorpha and D. bugensis) despite their presence in the environment. This confirms the role of MPs shape in their bioavailability to different aquatic organisms.

Further, MPs’ shape is pertinent to their potential toxic effects due to the different retention time, accumulation and physical damage. For example, fibres are reported to have longer intestinal residence time and accumulation, stronger acute toxicity and intestinal epithelial cell necrosis compared to other shapes in zebrafish, amphipods and grass shrimp. This could be attributed to the non-spherical shape, which is more easily embedded in tissue and takes longer time to pass through the gut. It is known that the longer the particles remain within the organism, the greater the potential to release associated toxins [76, 77, 78, 79].

4.3 Surface morphology

The surface morphology of MPs influences their interaction with the surrounding environment. For instance, adsorption/desorption of co-existing pollutants as well as biofilm formation are influenced, to a great extent, by the surface nature of MPs. Ultimately, surface morphology impacts the distribution and sedimentation, thus bioavailability of MPs [80].

Cracks, pitting, flaking and fracturing result in an increased surface area, which increases the emission of GHGs. The increased surface area also facilitates the adsorption of other pollutants as well as the formation of biofilms. As a result, MPs may become a cocktail of pollutants with varying toxicity effects [10, 11, 23, 30, 47, 81].

4.4 Colour

A variety of colourant agents such as pigments and dyes are widely used during plastic manufacturing, these colourants contain some toxic chemicals. Coloured MPs are, therefore, considered to have higher potential health risks compared to non-coloured MPs [82].

The uptake of coloured MPs by aquatic biota is well documented and exposure studies have suggested that aquatic organisms may actively prey on plastic particles that possess similar colours to their natural prey. For instance, the preferential uptake of certain colours (MPs with artificial food-like colours) was reported in common carp (Cyprinus carpio). The authors observed an increase in the number of ingested food-like MPs with increasing concentrations of MPs in the water, while no increase in the number of non-food-like colours was observed [83]. Similarly, Ory et al. [84] reported significant uptake of MPs with artificial food-like colours by palm ruff (Seriolella violacea) more often than other colours, whereas MPs of other colours were mostly co-ingested when floating close to food pellets. Another study by de Sá et al. [85] reported a preferential uptake of white MPs by common goby (Pomatoschistus microps), compared to black and red MPs. The authors attributed this to the similarity in colour with the brine shrimp (Artemia nauplii), a prey that is commonly consumed by the common goby.

4.5 Chemical composition

Generally, MPs consist of a high molecular polymer as the main body and a variety of additives such as stabilizers, plasticizers, flame retardants and colouring agents as auxiliary materials. These various potential compositions determine their properties such as density and degradability, behaviour and environmental impact. For instance, their distribution in different environmental compartments is greatly influenced by polymer density. MPs with low density are buoyant, while those of high density tend to sink into sediments [37, 68].

The chemical composition of MPs also influences their interaction with the co-existing contaminants. For instance, the tendency of MPs to adsorb metals depends mainly on the functional groups pendent on the backbone structure of the polymer [86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92]. Ultimately, the chemical composition of MPs shapes their toxicological effects.

It is reported that the effect of MPs on soil properties varies based on the polymer type. The polymer type further influences the degradation of MPs, as a result, MPs may release the contaminants that are adsorbed onto their surfaces. The degradation also increases the emission rate of GHGs by MPs. The rate of GHGs emission also depends on the polymer type, for instance, polyethylene is found to emit higher GHGs compared to a number of other polymers [22, 30, 34, 80, 93].

Advertisement

5. Concluding remarks

The ubiquitous detection of MPs in different environmental compartments has made them a prominent environmental concern. Due to the chemical modification of plastic materials, receiving environments are potentially exposed to a cocktail of pollutants (polymers, leached additives and degradation products). This chapter provided a brief overview of the environmental challenges associated with MPs. The complexity of their ecological impact is discussed in light of their heterogeneous physicochemical characteristics.

Over the past decade, monitoring and ecotoxicological studies have improved our understanding of their nature and potential health risks. However, a better understanding of their long-term effects is needed. Considering that MP pollution is a symptom of human-made environmental change and a valid example of society-nature interaction, their mitigation requires a lot more than technological innovation. For instance, strategies such as reuse, design for recycling, improved waste management, standardized labelling and sustainable consumption are important. However, such strategies are only effective through social action and regulations. Examples include behavioural change campaigns to reduce the use of single-use plastics and policy measures to reduce the use of microbeads.

Advertisement

Funding

The author would like to acknowledge the Royal Society, UK for funding through the Grand Challenges Research Fund (GCRF), [grant number: FLR\R1\201062].

Advertisement

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1. Weis JS. Improving microplastic research. AIMS Environmental Science. 2019;6:326-341
  2. 2. Koelmans B, Kalčíková G. A Scientific Perspective on Microplastics in Nature and Society. Berlin, Germany: SAPEA; 2019
  3. 3. Saad D, Ndlovu M, Ramaremisa G, Tutu H. Microplastics in freshwater environment: The first evaluation in sediment of the Vaal River, South Africa. Heliyon. 2022;8:e11118
  4. 4. Kalčíková G. Aquatic vascular plants – A forgotten piece of nature in microplastic research. Environmental Pollution. 2020;262:114354
  5. 5. Saad D, Chauke P, Cukrowska E, Richards H, Nikiema J, Chimuka L, et al. First biomonitoring of microplastic pollution in the Vaal river using Carp fish (Cyprinus carpio) “as a bio-indicator”. The Science of the Total Environment. 2022;836
  6. 6. Scherer C, Weber A, Lambert S, Wagner M. Interactions of microplastics with freshwater biota, Handbook of. Environment and Chemistry. 2018;58:153-180
  7. 7. Long M, Moriceau B, Gallinari M, Lambert C, Huvet A, Raffray J, et al. Interactions between microplastics and phytoplankton aggregates: Impact on their respective fates. Marine Chemistry. 2015;2015
  8. 8. Bellasi A, Binda G, Pozzi A, Galafassi S, Volta P, Bettinetti R. Microplastic contamination in freshwater environments: A review, focusing on interactions with sediments and benthic organisms. Environments - MDPI. 2020;7
  9. 9. Amelia TSM, Khalik WMAWM, Ong MC, Shao YT, Pan HJ, Bhubalan K. Marine microplastics as vectors of major ocean pollutants and its hazards to the marine ecosystem and humans. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science. 2021;8:1-26
  10. 10. Caruso G. Microplastics as vectors of contaminants. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2019;146:921-924
  11. 11. Joo SH, Liang Y, Kim M, Byun J, Choi H. Microplastics with adsorbed contaminants: Mechanisms and treatment. Environmental Challenges. 2021;3:100042
  12. 12. Banni M, Cholewí Nska P, Moniuszko H, Wojnarowski K, Pokorny P, Szeligowska N, et al. The occurrence of microplastics and the formation of biofilms by pathogenic and opportunistic bacteria as threats in aquaculture. Public Health. 2022;19:8137
  13. 13. Kellyid JJ, London MG, Mccormick AR, Rojas M, Scott JW, Hoellein TJ. Wastewater treatment alters microbial colonization of microplastics. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(1):e0244443
  14. 14. Iqbal R, Khan MT, Bilal H, Aslam MM, Khan IA, Raja S, et al. Microplastics as vectors of environmental contaminants: Interactions in the natural ecosystems. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal. 2022;28(9):1022-1042
  15. 15. Grbić J, Helm P, Athey S, Rochman CM. Microplastics entering northwestern Lake Ontario are diverse and linked to urban sources. Water Research. 2020;174:115623
  16. 16. Zhao S, Zhu L, Wang T, Li D. Suspended microplastics in the surface water of the Yangtze Estuary System, China: First observations on occurrence, distribution. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2014;86:562-568
  17. 17. Aves AR, Revell LE, Gaw S, Ruffell H, Schuddeboom A, Wotherspoon NE, et al. First evidence of microplastics in Antarctic snow. The Cryosphere. 2022;16:2127-2145
  18. 18. Yonkos LT, Friedel EA, Perez-Reyes AC, Ghosal S, Arthur CD. Microplastics in four estuarine rivers in the Chesapeake bay, U.S.A. Environmental Science & Technology. 2014;48:14195-14202
  19. 19. Qiu Q , Peng J, Yu X, Chen F, Wang J, Dong F. Occurrence of microplastics in the coastal marine environment: First observation on sediment of China. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2015;98:274-280
  20. 20. Shen M, Huang W, Chen M, Song B, Zeng G, Zhang Y. (Micro)plastic crisis: Un-ignorable contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2020;254:120138
  21. 21. Chen X, Huang G, Gao S, Wu Y. Effects of permafrost degradation on global microplastic cycling under climate change. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering. 2021;9:106000
  22. 22. Ford HV, Jones NH, Davies AJ, Godley BJ, Jambeck JR, Napper IE, et al. The fundamental links between climate change and marine plastic pollution. The Science of the Total Environment. 2022;806
  23. 23. Royer SJ, Ferrón S, Wilson ST, Karl DM. Production of methane and ethylene from plastic in the environment. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0200574
  24. 24. Shen M, Huang W, Chen M, Song B, Zeng G, Zhang Y. (Micro)plastic crisis: Un-ignorable contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2020;254:120138
  25. 25. Shen M, Ye S, Zeng G, Zhang Y, Xing L, Tang W, et al. Can microplastics pose a threat to ocean carbon sequestration? Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2020;150:110712
  26. 26. Yu H, Fan P, Hou J, Dang Q , Cui D, Xi B, et al. Inhibitory effect of microplastics on soil extracellular enzymatic activities by changing soil properties and direct adsorption: An investigation at the aggregate-fraction level. Environmental Pollution. 2020;267:115544
  27. 27. Chia RW, Lee J-Y, Jang J, Kim H, Kwon KD. Soil health and microplastics: A review of the impacts of microplastic contamination on soil properties. Journal of Soils and Sediments. 2022;22:2690-2705
  28. 28. Crossman J, Hurley RR, Futter M, Nizzetto L. Transfer and transport of microplastics from biosolids to agricultural soils and the wider environment. The Science of the Total Environment. 2020;724
  29. 29. Kim YN, Yoon JH, Kim KH. Microplastic contamination in soil environment - A review. Soil Science Annual. 2020;71:300-308
  30. 30. Feng X, Wang Q , Sun Y, Zhang S, Wang F. Microplastics change soil properties, heavy metal availability and bacterial community in a Pb-Zn-contaminated soil. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2022;424:127364
  31. 31. Zhang Z et al. Current research and perspective of microplastics (MPs) in soils (dusts), rivers (lakes), and marine environments in China. Ecotoxicological and Environmental Safety. 2020;202
  32. 32. de Souza MacHado AA, Lau CW, Till J, Kloas W, Lehmann A, Becker R, et al. Impacts of Microplastics on the Soil Biophysical Environment. Environmental Science & Technology. 2018;52:9656-9665
  33. 33. Abel De Souza Machado A, Lau CW, Kloas W, Bergmann J, Bachelier JB, Faltin E, et al. Microplastics can change soil properties and affect plant performance. Environmental Science & Technology. 2019;53(10):6044-6052
  34. 34. Wang F, Wang Q , Adams CA, Sun Y, Zhang S. Effects of microplastics on soil properties: Current knowledge and future perspectives. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2022;424:127531
  35. 35. Wang J, Liu X, Li Y, Powell T, Wang X, Wang G, et al. Microplastics as contaminants in the soil environment: A mini-review. Science of The Total Environment. 2019;691:848-857
  36. 36. Li H-Z, Zhu D, Lindhardt JH, Lin S-M, Ke X, Cui L. Long-term fertilization history alters effects of microplastics on soil properties, microbial communities, and functions in diverse farmland ecosystem. Environmental Science & Technology. 2021;2021
  37. 37. Salthammer T. Microplastics and their additives in the indoor environment. Angewandte Chemie, International Edition. 2022;61:e202205713
  38. 38. Campanale C, Massarelli C, Savino I, Locaputo V, Uricchio VF. A detailed review study on potential effects of microplastics and additives of concern on human health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020;17
  39. 39. Ramaremisa G, Ndlovu M, Saad D. Comparative assessment of microplastics in surface waters and sediments of the Vaal River, South Africa: Abundance, composition, and sources. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 2022;41:3029-3040
  40. 40. Wang J, Guo X, Xue J. Biofilm-developed microplastics as vectors of pollutants in aquatic environments. Environmental Science & Technology. 2021;55:12780-12790
  41. 41. Brennecke D, Duarte B, Paiva F, Caçador I, Canning-Clode J. Microplastics as vector for heavy metal contamination from the marine environment. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 2016;178:189-195
  42. 42. Hartmann NB, Rist S, Bodin J, Jensen LHS, Schmidt SN, Mayer P, et al. Microplastics as vectors for environmental contaminants: Exploring sorption, desorption, and transfer to biota. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management. 2017;13:488-493
  43. 43. Fred-Ahmadu OH, Bhagwat G, Oluyoye I, Benson NU, Ayejuyo OO, Palanisami T. Interaction of chemical contaminants with microplastics: Principles and perspectives. Science of The Total Environment. 2020;706:135978
  44. 44. Santos LHMLM, Rodríguez-Mozaz S, Barceló D. Microplastics as vectors of pharmaceuticals in aquatic organisms – An overview of their environmental implications. Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering. 2021;3:100079
  45. 45. Hanslik L, Huppertsberg S, Kämmer N, Knepper TP, Braunbeck T. Rethinking the relevance of microplastics as vector for anthropogenic contaminants: Adsorption of toxicants to microplastics during exposure in a highly polluted stream - Analytical quantification and assessment of toxic effects in zebrafish (Danio rerio). Science of The Total Environment. 2022;816:151640
  46. 46. Naqash N, Prakash S, Kapoor D, Singh R. Interaction of freshwater microplastics with biota and heavy metals: A review. Environmental Chemistry Letters 2020 18. 2020;6:1813-1824
  47. 47. Banni M, Cholewí Nska P, Moniuszko H, Wojnarowski K, Pokorny P, Szeligowska N, et al. The occurrence of microplastics and the formation of biofilms by pathogenic and opportunistic bacteria as threats in aquaculture. Public Health. 2022;19:8137
  48. 48. Chen J, Rao C, Yuan R, Sun D, Guo S, Li L, et al. Long-term exposure to polyethylene microplastics and glyphosate interferes with the behavior, intestinal microbial homeostasis, and metabolites of the common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.). Science of The Total Environment. 2022;814:152681
  49. 49. Xia X, Sun M, Zhou M, Chang Z, Li L. Polyvinyl chloride microplastics induce growth inhibition and oxidative stress in Cyprinus carpio var. larvae. Science of The Total Environment. 2020;716:136479
  50. 50. Rochman CM, Hoh E, Kurobe T, Teh SJ. Ingested plastic transfers hazardous chemicals to fish and induces hepatic stress. Scientific Reports. 2013;3:1-7
  51. 51. Hamed M, Monteiro CE, Sayed AEDH. Investigation of the impact caused by different sizes of polyethylene plastics (nano, micro, and macro) in common carp juveniles, Cyprinus carpio L., using multi-biomarkers. Science of The Total Environment. 2022;803:149921
  52. 52. Nematdoost Haghi B, Banaee M. Effects of micro-plastic particles on paraquat toxicity to common carp (Cyprinus carpio): Biochemical changes. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology. 2017;14:521-530
  53. 53. Hatami M, Banaee M, Nematdoost Haghi B. Sub-lethal toxicity of chlorpyrifos alone and in combination with polyethylene glycol to common carp (Cyprinus carpio). Chemosphere. 2019;219:981-988
  54. 54. Shamskhany A, Li Z, Patel P, Karimpour S. Evidence of microplastic size impact on mobility and transport in the marine environment: A review and synthesis of recent research. Frontiers in Marine Science. 2021;8:1869
  55. 55. Zhang X, Chen Y, Li X, Zhang Y, Gao W, Jiang J, et al. Size/shape-dependent migration of microplastics in agricultural soil under simulative and natural rainfall. Science of The Total Environment. 2022;815:152507
  56. 56. Covernton GA, Pearce CM, Gurney-Smith HJ, Chastain SG, Ross PS, Dower JF, et al. Size and shape matter: A preliminary analysis of microplastic sampling technique in seawater studies with implications for ecological risk assessment. Science of The Total Environment. 2019;667:124-132
  57. 57. Lozano YM, Lehnert T, Linck LT, Lehmann A, Rillig MC. Microplastic shape, polymer type, and concentration affect soil properties and plant biomass. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2021;12:169
  58. 58. Wang W, Ge J, Yu X. Bioavailability and toxicity of microplastics to fish species: A review. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2020;189
  59. 59. Chakraborty P, Chandra S, et al. Interlinkage between persistent organic pollutants and plastic in the waste management system of India: An overview. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 2022;109(6):927-936
  60. 60. Batel A, Linti F, Scherer M, Erdinger L, Braunbeck T. Transfer of benzo[a]pyrene from microplastics to Artemia nauplii and further to zebrafish via a trophic food web experiment: CYP1A induction and visual tracking of persistent organic pollutants. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 2016;35:1656-1666
  61. 61. Rogers KL, Carreres-Calabuig JA, Gorokhova E, Posth NR. Micro-by-micro interactions: How microorganisms influence the fate of marine microplastics. Limnol Oceanogr Lett. 2020;5:18-36
  62. 62. Galloway TS, Lewis CN. Marine microplastics spell big problems for future generations. PNAS. 2022;113(9):2331-2333
  63. 63. Caputo F, Vogel R, Savage J, Vella G, Law A, et al. Measuring particle size distribution and mass concentration of nanoplastics and microplastics: Addressing some analytical challenges in the sub-micron size range. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science. 2021;588:401-417
  64. 64. Collard F, Gasperi J, Gilbert B, Eppe G, Azimi S, Rocher V, et al. Anthropogenic particles in the stomach contents and liver of the freshwater fish Squalius cephalus. Science of The Total Environment. 2018;643:1257-1264
  65. 65. Browne MA, Dissanayake A, Galloway TS, Lowe DM, Thompson RC. Ingested microscopic plastic translocates to the circulatory system of the mussel, Mytilus edulis (L.). Environmental Science & Technology. 2008;42:5026-5031
  66. 66. Galafassi S, Campanale C, Massarelli C, Uricchio VF, Volta P. Do freshwater fish eat microplastics? A review with a focus on effects on fish health and predictive traits of mps ingestion. Water (Switzerland). 2021;13(16):2214
  67. 67. Kowalski N, Reichardt AM, Waniek JJ. Sinking rates of microplastics and potential implications of their alteration by physical, biological, and chemical factors. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2016;109:310-319
  68. 68. Kooi M, van Nes EH, Scheffer M, Koelmans AA. Ups and downs in the ocean: Effects of biofouling on vertical transport of microplastics. Environmental Science & Technology. 2017;51:7971
  69. 69. Khatmullina L, Isachenko I. Settling velocity of microplastic particles of regular shapes. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2017;114:871-880
  70. 70. Lehmann A, Leifheit EF, Gerdawischke M, Rillig MC. Microplastics have shape- and polymer-dependent effects on soil aggregation and organic matter loss – an experimental and meta-analytical approach. Microplastics and Nanoplastics. 2021;1:1-14
  71. 71. Zhao T, Lozano YM, Rillig MC. Microplastics increase soil pH and decrease microbial activities as a function of microplastic shape, polymer type, and exposure time. Frontiers in Environmental Science. 2021;9
  72. 72. Rillig MC, Lehmann A, de Souza Machado AA, Yang G. Microplastic effects on plants. The New Phytologist. 2019;223:1066-1070
  73. 73. Yuan W, Liu X, Wang W, Di M, Wang J. Microplastic abundance, distribution and composition in water, sediments, and wild fish from Poyang Lake, China. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2019;170:180-187
  74. 74. Hurley RR, Woodward JC, Rothwell JJ. Ingestion of microplastics by freshwater Tubifex worms. 2017;51(21):12844-12851
  75. 75. Schessl M, Johns C. Ashpole, microbeads in sediment, Dreissenid Mussels, and Anurans in the littoral zone of the Upper St. Lawrence River, New York. Pollution. 2019;5:41-52
  76. 76. Blarer P, Burkhardt-Holm P. Microplastics affect assimilation efficiency in the freshwater amphipod Gammarus fossarum, Environmental Science and Pollution. Research. 2016;23:23522-23532
  77. 77. Gray AD, Weinstein JE. Size- and shape-dependent effects of microplastic particles on adult daggerblade grass shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 2017;36:3074-3080
  78. 78. Qiao R, Deng Y, Zhang S, Wolosker MB, Zhu Q , Ren H, et al. Accumulation of different shapes of microplastics initiates intestinal injury and gut microbiota dysbiosis in the gut of zebrafish. Chemosphere. 2019;236:124334
  79. 79. Yuan Z, Nag R, Cummins E. Human health concerns regarding microplastics in the aquatic environment - From marine to food systems. The Science of the Total Environment. 2022;823
  80. 80. Zhang J, Wang L, Kannan K. Quantitative analysis of polyethylene terephthalate and polycarbonate microplastics in sediment collected from South Korea, Japan and the USA. Chemosphere. 2021;279
  81. 81. Yu F, Yang C, Zhu Z, Bai X, Ma J. Adsorption behavior of organic pollutants and metals on micro/nanoplastics in the aquatic environment. The Science of the Total Environment. 2019;694
  82. 82. Onoja S, Nel HA, Abdallah MAE, Harrad S. Microplastics in freshwater sediments: Analytical methods, temporal trends, and risk of associated organophosphate esters as exemplar plastics additives. Environmental Research. 2022;203
  83. 83. Roch S, Friedrich C, Brinker A. Uptake routes of microplastics in fishes: Practical and theoretical approaches to test existing theories. Scientific Reports. 2020;10
  84. 84. Ory NC, Gallardo C, Lenz M, Thiel M. Capture, swallowing, and egestion of microplastics by a planktivorous juvenile fish. Environmental Pollution. 2018;240:566-573
  85. 85. de Sá LC, Luís LG, Guilhermino L. Effects of microplastics on juveniles of the common goby (Pomatoschistus microps): Confusion with prey, reduction of the predatory performance and efficiency, and possible influence of developmental conditions. Environmental Pollution. 2015;196:359-362
  86. 86. Saad DM, Cukrowska EM, Tutu H. Development and application of cross-linked polyethylenimine for trace metal and metalloid removal from mining and industrial wastewaters. Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry. 2011;93
  87. 87. Saad D. Selective removal of Cr(III) from aqueous solution using cross-linked polyethylenimine: Experimental optimization and modeling. Polymer Bulletin. 2022;79
  88. 88. Saad DMG, Cukrowska EM, Tutu H. Phosphonated cross-linked polyethylenimine for selective removal of uranium ions from aqueous solutions. Water Science and Technology. 2012;66
  89. 89. Saad DMG, Cukrowska EM, Tutu H. Sulfonated cross-linked polyethylenimine for selective removal of mercury from aqueous solutions. Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry. 2012;94
  90. 90. Saad DM, Cukrowska EM, Tutu H. Selective removal of mercury from aqueous solutions using thiolated cross-linked polyethylenimine. Applied Water Science. 2013;3
  91. 91. Saad DMG, Cukrowska EM, Tutu H. Modified cross-linked polyethylenimine for the removal of selenite from mining wastewaters. Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry. 2013;95
  92. 92. Saad DM, Cukrowska EM, Tutu H. Functionalisation of cross-linked polyethylenimine for the removal of as from mining wastewater. Water SA. 2013;39
  93. 93. Selonen S, Dolar A, Jemec Kokalj A, Skalar T, Parramon Dolcet L, Hurley R, et al. Exploring the impacts of plastics in soil – The effects of polyester textile fibers on soil invertebrates. Science of The Total Environment. 2020;700:134451

Written By

Dalia Saad

Submitted: 12 October 2022 Reviewed: 28 November 2022 Published: 02 March 2023