Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI
IJERPHInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
PDF
  • Review
  • Open Access

2 June 2025

Microplastic Pollution: A Global Environmental Crisis Impacting Marine Life, Human Health, and Potential Innovative Sustainable Solutions

,
,
,
and
1
Department of Physiology, Bankura Christian College, Bankura 722101, India
2
Department of Bachelor in Medical Laboratory Technology, Durgapur Institute of Paramedical Science, Durgapur 713212, India
3
Department of Human Physiology, University of Calcutta, Kolkata 700009, India
4
Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Environmental Health Sciences, Jiann-Ping Hsu College of Public Health, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA 30460, USA
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health2025, 22(6), 889;https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22060889
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

Pollution, especially plastic pollution, presents a serious worldwide danger to essential environmental resources. Microplastics are tiny plastic fragments varying in size from 50 μm to 5 mm. The primary aim of this article is to develop an extensive review grounded in the latest data accessible until 2024, adhering to PRISMA guidelines. A total of 329 data points were collected and 297 of those were removed through filtering, leaving 32 articles for the study, and taking into account the complete evolution of all the publications. This study seeks to enhance public awareness and knowledge among researchers about the harmful effects of plastic pollution on the environment and society by identifying its sources and consequences for humans and ecosystems. A detailed analysis of the sources of microplastics in the oceans and their detrimental effects on marine organisms is presented. This research additionally explores the transport of microplastics through various environmental pathways, including water and air. Aquatic species ingest microplastics, which subsequently transfer up the food chain, including humans, and these risks are discussed. Microplastics may increase the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), leading to DNA and cellular damage, oxidative stress, alterations in gene expression, and decreased cell viability. Developing clear and effective guidelines and regulations is crucial for addressing the adverse issues related to microplastics. All participants in the policymaking and implementation of these guidelines must understand their roles and responsibilities.

1. Introduction

Synthetic polymers with pliable or malleable (flexible) properties that allow for shape-molding are known as plastics. Long polymer chains made of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, silicon, and chloride—all of which come from coal, oil, and natural gas—make up plastic. Pollution, particularly plastic pollution, poses a grave global threat to vital environmental resources. Currently, the whole world is facing several kinds of pollution, among which plastic pollution is also a notable one [1]. Unfortunately, the widespread usage of plastic and its byproducts results in a significant amount of waste plastics, which are released into the environment untreated [1]. The definition of plastics is “polymeric material that may contain other substances to improve performances and/or reduce costs”. As a material, polymeric material has existed over the past century [2], and the mass production of plastic began in 1950s [3].
The number of plastic items produced annually worldwide was around 460 million tons in 2019, with 9% going toward recycling. By 2060, that amount is predicted to rise to 1.2 billion tons [4]. Every year, almost 8 million tons of plastic waste from the land is discarded into the ocean [4], of which 1% is made up entirely of minute plastic trash. Because of their convenience and remarkable cost-to-performance ratios, plastics, a material that has a number of uses, have proven crucial in preserving the comfort and quality of contemporary living [5]. They are composed of a variety of high molecular weight organic chemicals, including ethylene, vinyl chloride, vinyl acetate, vinyl alcohol, and so on. Because plastic is flexible, it may be molded into a variety of forms when it is soft and then solidify into a hard or somewhat flexible item or a solid object of any size or shape [6].
Plastics are synthetic polymers, persistent in the environment, and do not break readily. Significant environmental contamination issues have been brought on by their discharge into the environment [7]. The amount of plastic garbage in the environment is a major concern since it may have a negative impact on humans, wildlife, and their environments. One of the main environmental issues at the moment is plastic garbage, which has been abundantly demonstrated by several studies in recent decades to exist and have an influence on a variety of natural regions [8,9]. Plastic garbage is still piling up at various trophic levels of the ecosystem, despite increased awareness of the problem on a global scale. Plastics are mostly used and produced in large quantities. After usage, plastic and its byproducts are often discarded into the environment [10]. According to previous studies, the amount of plastic garbage created in 2010 by 192 coastal nations was around 275 million tons, surpassing the total amount of plastic and its products produced worldwide [11]. India produces 9.3 million tons of coal annually, followed by Nigeria (3.5 million tons), Indonesia (3.4 million tons), China (2.8 million tons), Pakistan (2.6 million tons), Bangladesh (1.7 million tons), Russia (1.7 million tons), Brazil (1.4 million tons), Thailand (1.0 million tons), and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (1.0 million tons) [12]. As a whole, these countries produce a substantial amount of coal each year. Furthermore, an alternative study team discovered that around 12.7 million tons of plastic debris enters the seas and oceans annually [13].

1.1. Types of Microplastics, Uses, and Sources

Based on their particle size and the kinds of materials and components used in their production, plastics may be broadly classified into two groups, which are listed in Table 1. “Macroplastics” are plastic materials that are typically larger than 5 mm in their largest diameter. “Microplastics” are plastic items and garbage that are less than 5 mm in size and have the ability to break into numerous smaller pieces [14,15]. In the middle of the 2000s, the idea of “microplastics” first appeared, considering plastic particles with sizes between 50 μm and 5 mm [16]. The British marine researcher Professor Richard Thompson of the University of Plymouth first used the term “microplastic” in 2004. Later, a relatively new area of environmental research focused on the many impacts of nanoplastics, which are plastic particles that are smaller than 100 nm [17,18]. Plastics can persist in the environment as both microplastics and nanoplastics. They are identified as emergent particle anthropogenic pollutants and may be found in the environment, including soil, drinking water, ground water, ocean, sediments, air, and in different biota.
Table 1. Different types, sources, and uses of plastics (based on the constituents and kind of materials used in their production) [17,18].
Prior research on microplastic pollution was limited in scope, and there was a lack of standardized procedures, data on the sources of microplastics, and analytical methods. In order to overcome these shortcomings, this review performed a thorough search of the literature, examined the distribution of sources, suggested a standard procedure for sampling, extraction, and analysis, and investigated cutting-edge analytical methods such as mass spectrometry and Raman spectroscopy. Utilizing a systematic review approach, quality evaluation, and data synthesis, the review checks for bias, integrates the results of the included studies, and ensures a thorough and transparent literature search.

1.2. Objective of This Study

The main objectives of this review are to identify the sources, causes, and effects of microplastics, evaluate their prevalence in both humans and the environment, and explore our potential contributions to treatment and mitigation strategies. Alongside this comprehensive examination of plastic’s impact on people and the planet, our campaigns in this article seek to raise societal awareness about the detrimental effects of microplastics.
This review article offers a distinctive perspective on microplastic pollution by synthesizing insights from marine biology, environmental science, and public health, reflecting the latest research available. It highlights innovative solutions and cutting-edge technologies aimed at addressing the challenge of microplastic pollution. Additionally, the review provides a global overview, drawing attention to regional disparities and potential interventions. By exploring the interconnections between microplastic pollution, marine ecosystems, human health, and sustainable solutions, it creates a comprehensive synthesis of current knowledge and future pathways. This holistic viewpoint may enable academics, policymakers, and stakeholders to gain a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding microplastic pollution and to formulate more effective strategies for its mitigation.

2. Materials and Methods

The meta-analyses criteria, systematic reviews, and checklists were followed in the planning and implementation of this systematic review.

2.1. Search Strategy

For the systematic reviews, a variety of search engines were employed, including PubMed, MEDLINE, and NDSL (National Digital Science Library). Search engines were used to gather data by searching for specific phrases like “microplastic and environment, microplastic pollution”, “microplastic toxicity and health hazards”, “properties and types of microplastic”, and “molecular mechanism of microplastic in human body”. Articles between 2000 and 2024 were included in this study. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were followed throughout the literature search and review procedure.

2.2. Study Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Articles written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals that met the specified criteria for population size, amount of exposure in the human body, result outcome after exposure, and study design of our relevant topic were included in this review. Research articles that indicated the potential for human exposure through the food chain and that demonstrated the potential for health impacts by extrapolating the results of animal trials to the human body were included in the review. Studies that reported on endpoints such as mortality, growth inhibition, or biochemical changes in organisms exposed to microplastics were included. Physical characterization methods include microscopy and particle size analysis, while chemical characterization methods include spectroscopy and chromatography.
Exclusions include studies that lack sufficient detail or use widely accepted methods. Exclusions include studies using validated methods or lacking sufficient detail on method parameters and quality control. Studies that did not provide sufficient information on microplastic characterization or toxic endpoints, studies including review articles or conference abstracts without original data, studies that were not written in English, and studies that did not meet the predefined quality thresholds were excluded from this review.

3. Results

Selection of Review Articles

In this review, we tried to enhance the methodology for identifying and choosing research in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines (Figure 1). Approximately 329 data points were gathered from all reliable search engines; 221 duplicate data points were eliminated by filtering, resulting in the discovery of 108 databases. Of those, forty-three data points were determined to be suitable for this investigation after sixty-five data points had been eliminated based on exclusion criteria. Thirty-two articles remained for the study, considering the whole evolution of all the publications, with eleven original articles removed in Table 2 [19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50]. Table 3 provides additional features of the chosen research articles along with their purposes and findings.
Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart for study selection and screening.
Table 2. Summary of the included studies and database results.
Table 3. Result outcome of selected studies [19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50].

4. Discussion

4.1. Environmental Microplastic Pollution

Microplastic pollution has been identified in various environmental areas. Very small plastic particles, about one millimeter in size, have been found floating on the surface of seawater, with a concentration of approximately 1.1 g per square kilometer [51]. In sea-sides and coastlines, where microplastics usually assemble and are abundant, levels have been found to vary from 27 to 5595 particles per square meter [52,53,54]. Additionally, recent research discovered significantly high concentrations of microplastics (0.58–2116 pieces/kg) in low-energy sludge layers [55]. The concentration of microplastics near the continental shelf’s sea surface ranges from 3 to 102,000 particles per cubic meter (m3) [56,57]. Microplastics, ranging from 0 to 400 particles/m3, have been found in sediments taken at depths of 1176–4844 m in the deep sea. Because microplastics are so common in the deep sea, pollution can have an impact on a variety of marine life types. Different trophic levels consume these affected aquatic species, and eventually, higher trophic levels like humans are affected as well. Several investigations reveal that 83% of the lobsters consumed microplastics [57]. According to Cheung et al., marine organisms in China consume relatively little microplastic and its products [58]. Another study shows that microplastics were present in the tissues of all shellfish sampled from the Chinese market, with 4–57 particles detected per sample [59]. Another research group found that microplastic was also found in wild oysters in the Pearl River Estuary, with 1–7 particles detected per oyster [60]. Plastic pellets used by manufacturers, tires from automobiles, and synthetic apparel are sources of microplastics. They are also produced by the physical decomposition of plastic garbage. Rainwater carries them into lakes, ponds, rivers, and the ocean; in addition, treated sewage waste that is applied as fertilizer to fields can also carry them away on airborne particles.

4.2. Chemical and Physical Characterization of Microplastics

Chemicals that are absorbed from the environment, as well as additives and polymeric raw materials formed from the plastic (such as monomers or oligomers), are the two main categories of chemicals often present in microplastics [61]. Plastics generally fall into two categories: throwaway plastic and durable plastic. Thermoplastics, such as polypropylene (PP), polycarbonate (PC), polyarylsulfone (PSU), polystyrene (PS), thermoplastic elastomers (TPE), and polyethylene terephthalate (PET), are types of polymers that are easily manipulated and reversed by altering the temperature. Thermoplastics, such as epoxy resins, vinyl ester, polyurethane (PUR), urea formaldehyde, acrylic resin, silicone, melamine resin, phenolic resins, phenolic formaldehyde, and unsaturated polyester, are a class of plastics that cannot be modified by heating. Other examples of thermoplastics include polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polypropylene (PP), polyamides (PA), and fluoropolymer.
Physical characterization determines the particle shape, size, color, general morphology, initial type, degree of corrosion, and degree of age of microplastics by eye inspection [62], dynamic research into light scattering [63], along with the analysis of laser diffraction particle size [64]. A scanning electron microscope combined with an energy-dispersive X-ray is typically used to determine the functional groups, molecular weight, structure, and degree of polymerization of the polymers in microplastics. Mixtures of heterogeneous plastic particles with a wide variety and complex compositions can be determined by various methods [65]. Infrared spectroscopy using Fourier transform [66], Raman Effect analysis [67], thermal examination [68], mass spectrometry, etc., can be successfully used in analyzing heterogeneous and complex microplastics [69].

4.3. Dispersion of Microplastics in the Surroundings

Depending on where they come from, microplastics in the environment might be categorized as primary or secondary. Primary microplastics are tiny particles with voluntarily added microbeads that are accidentally discharged or are byproducts of some procedure. They are purposefully made in the size range of ≤5 mm. They are utilized in the manufacturing of resin pellets and as particles for sandblasting in personal care products such as face washes, cosmetics, shampoos, and exfoliating or exfoliating toothpastes [70,71]. Usually, polyethylene is used to make them (or nylon, polypropylene, or polyethylene terephthalate). Particles known as secondary microplastics are produced when bigger plastic objects degrade and release these tiny fragments into the environment. For example, "deposits" of waste that break into smaller pieces, the shedding of fibers during washing fabrics or clothing, or the breakdown of larger plastics (like plastic bags or bottles) in nature [72]. There is a large distribution of microplastics in aquatic ecosystems, such as oceans [73], deep trenches [74,75], and sediments in offshore areas such as rivers [76], estuaries [77,78,79], lakes [80], beaches, estuaries, and islands. The aquatic environment has been a major disaster area for microplastic pollution [81]. Conventional pathways for microplastics to contaminate far-off water bodies and the deep sea include long-distance transport by water currents through rivers, wind, and ocean currents [82]. Because of the effects of tides and ocean currents, a large portion of the plastic debris discovered in the marine environment is still present along the shore. Other teams of researchers are also researching it. Numerous forms of microplastics have been shown to be present in the sediments found in lakes, estuaries, rivers, coasts, seas, and oceans. When coupled, these tiny microplastics can travel great distances to reach the ocean sink by combining them with various sediments [83]. Coastal areas may serve as an important source of microplastics that eventually find their way into the sea and ocean (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Sources of microplastics.

4.4. Transportation of Microplastics

Microplastics exhibit diverse transport pathways, including aquatic transport, where they are carried by ocean currents, river flows, and tides, with their buoyancy and density determining their vertical distribution in water columns. Atmospheric transport allows microplastics to travel long distances, potentially leading to their deposition in remote regions, where airborne microplastics can settle on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Understanding the fate of atmospheric microplastics is often connected to those found in both land and water environments. Freshwater, marine, terrestrial, and atmospheric ecosystems are interconnected and have different sources, pathways, and sinks for microplastics. In aquatic ecosystems, microplastics are consumed by marine life and transported up the food chain, potentially impacting animals at higher trophic levels, including humans. Moreover, human-mediated transport, driven by activities such as shipping, fishing, and tourism, can facilitate the movement of microplastics between regions and ecosystems.

4.5. Prevalence of Microplastics in Humans and the Environment

Significant ecological problems can result from the widespread presence of microplastics in sediments and aquatic environments, which can have deleterious impacts on people and other animals [84,85,86]. Numerous heavy metals, including pollution from the marine environment, such as Al, Ag, Zn, As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, Ni, Se, and Sn, are being transported via microplastics. It may also hold and absorb dangerous substances, and it can draw harmful pathogenic microorganisms, such as Vibrio spp., etc., from sewage.
There is evidence of microplastics in marine creatures at every stage of the food chain. The quantity of microplastic eaten differs depending on the species and the area, and it might differ greatly even within the same area. There are three basic reasons why microplastics are toxic: (1) swallowing pressures, including physical obstructions and energy expenditure during ingesting, it can deform, break, and transport microplastics, changing their size, shape, surface area, toxicity, and bioavailability, their size, shape, and surface area may alter as a result; (2) plastic additive leaks, such as plasticizers; and (3) pollution linked to microplastic [85,87,88]. It can have a variety of effects on aquatic species if consumed [89,90,91]. According to a recent study, the major ways that microplastics’ individual toxicity displays itself are through physical harm, obstruction of the gastrointestinal system, and slowed absorption rates. All of these factors have an impact on an organism’s ability to grow and develop, as well as on endocrine system abnormalities, reproductive issues, neurological ailments, and, eventually, mortality. For instance, the stomach, intestine, and/or other tissues of seals, herring, cod, whiting, and clams have been reported to contain microplastics [92]. Microplastics are known to be consumed by marine species along with their food, and there are signs that certain animals consume microplastics because they are the same size as their typical diet, such as algae. The consumption of seafood may be another way that humans are exposed to microplastics.

4.6. Toxic Effects

The effect on human health depends on the magnitude of the exposure concentrations. Microplastic generally affects the nervous system [93] gastrointestinal tract [94,95], excretory system [96,97], respiratory tract [98,99,100,101,102,103], internal organs [104], and also the placenta [105]. Numerous studies demonstrate the negative consequences of using plastic. Common adverse effects include gastrointestinal obstructions, which may create a feeling of excessive fullness, as well as both internal and external damage to the human body. Ingestion of micro- and nano-sized plastics is potentially associated with three types of harm: (1) physical effects associated with ingestion similar to macroplastics (but in the case of smaller organisms), (2) harmful effects brought on by the discharge of dangerous materials and also from their intended application as a raw material for the synthesis of polymers; and (3) a hazardous reaction to substances that are unintentionally adsorbed on microplastics. Rivers are significant pathways for microplastic transportation into seas and oceans [106]. Studies have documented microplastic presence in various rivers, including the Nile [107], Amazon [108], and Danube [109]. These findings highlight the need for further research on microplastic pollution in freshwater ecosystems and the development of effective mitigation strategies.
Microplastics pose a multifaceted danger to people’s health. These minuscule particles can make their way into our bodies through tainted water and food sources, accumulating in the gastrointestinal tract and potentially causing a range of health issues. Within the gut, microplastics may trigger irritation, inflammation, and damage to the intestinal lining, resulting in digestive discomfort [110]. Furthermore, emerging research [111] indicates that microplastics can disrupt the delicate balance of the gut microbiome, influencing digestion, immune function, and overall well-being. These particles can cause the body to produce more reactive oxygen species (ROS), which can lead to oxidative stress and a variety of health issues, including cancer, obesity, cardiovascular disease, birth defects, inflammation, neurotoxicity, chronic diseases, respiratory issues, and autoimmune disorders (Figure 3). They can also cause inflammatory responses within the body, contributing to various health conditions.
Figure 3. Impact of microplastics on humans.
Additionally, microplastics may serve as surfaces for harmful microorganisms, raising concerns about infections and exposure to pathogenic bacteria and viruses like COVID-19. Beyond the gut, there is growing evidence suggesting that microplastics may translocate to other organs and tissues, potentially impacting various organ systems. Their interaction with the immune system further complicates matters, potentially resulting in chronic immune activation or dysregulation with consequential health implications [112]. The complex interplay between microplastics and human health necessitates ongoing research to fully understand and mitigate the risks they pose (Figure 3).

5. Treatment and Mitigation Strategies

Advanced filtration systems, bioremediation strategies, and circular economy approaches are all various remediation approaches as solutions to microplastic pollution. Adsorption is a crucial element in many biological, chemical, and physical procedures related to the treatment of wastewater and water reclamation. It operates through many processes influenced by factors within phase boundaries. These pressures can impact and facilitate adsorption, potentially resulting in feedback loops. Adsorbents display a diverse array of surface architectures and chemical compositions, reflecting their wide array of applications. Materials such as mesoporous silica, minerals, hybrid particles, carbon nanoparticles, zeolites, activated carbons, and inorganic–organic modified bentonite are utilized for adsorption to eliminate microplastics. These adsorbents possess inherent limitations, including the inability to efficiently remove minuscule constituents from the pretreated matrix despite their high adsorption capacities. Zeolites, activated carbons, carbon nanoparticles, and inorganic–organic modified bentonite are important examples of adsorbents [113].
The substance-activated carbon (AC) is frequently used in adsorption applications due to its extensive specific surface area and minimal surface polarity, both of which augment its capacity to effectively adsorb microplastics [114].Nonetheless, notable drawbacks of AC include its chaotic structure, its incapacity to accept pores exceeding 2 nm, and its irregular distribution of pore dimensions. Adsorption is facilitated by the solution’s electrolyte content by imparting a positive surface charge to the carbon, enhancing the binding between the adsorbent and the adsorbate. Therefore, while a neutral carbon surface is optimal, a positively charged surface enhances effective adsorption. Activated carbon is commonly employed in commercial applications to enhance the quantity of groups that possess acidic oxygen and surface charge density. These modifications can be accomplished through chemical procedures such as oxidation or thermal treatment. Following heat treatment and selective modification with nitric acid, activated carbons exhibited significant improvements in microplastic adsorption. The untreated and thermally treated carbons had the highest equilibrium adsorption capacities, found at 382.12 and 432.34 mg/g, in that order. Microplastic adsorption was impacted by pH and temperature; when the temperature increased from 288 to 318 K, less microplastic was able to be adsorbed. Moreover, at pH 11.0, activated carbons showed the lowest adsorption capability [115].
Research indicates that microplastics break down rapidly in aerobic environments, implying that activated sludge might be used to biodegrade BPA. Measurements of the oxygen absorption rate of activated sludge at 22 degrees Celsius show that 10 percent of microplastics decompose in 4.7 to 5.2 days. Additional research revealed that by day 28, a maximum of 93.1% of BPA had decomposed, with a range of 77.1% to 92.3% decomposition after 10 days. Biodegradation commenced rapidly after a 3.4-day lag and continued across a wide range of influent microplastic concentrations (0.05–550,000 µg/L). In aquatic environments, Gram-negative bacteria have been shown to decompose microplastics, which they use as their sole carbon and energy source. Research investigating these bacteria’s metabolism of microplastics uncovered two main metabolites: (4,5-dimethylphenyl)-1-propanol and 2,2-bis(4,5-dimethylphenyl). The major process yielded 4-hydroxyacetophenone and 4-hydroxybenzoic acid, whereas the minor pathway yielded 1,2-propanediol. The oxidative rearrangement that results in the production of these chemicals is believed to be assisted by aerobic bacteria. Studies with Vibrio fischeri show that microplastic biodegradation also detoxifies the chemical, even though microplastic and certain BPA metabolites share estrogenic properties. What this means is that biodegradation acts as a detoxifier [116,117,118].
Activated sludge systems often contain two kinds of microbes—degraders and non-degraders—when they treat wastewater that contains xenobiotics, like microplastics. Although degraders may not be present initially, non-degraders could adapt to utilize different metabolic routes. Conversely, internal degradation mechanisms cause the eradication of some non-degraders. During acclimatization, there is a lag period called the “lag phase” that comes before the compound’s breakdown phase.
The efficiency of microplastic removal in wastewater treatment is highly dependent on the biomass type utilized. In contrast to activated sludge, which is good at removing micropollutants, systems that use immobilized biomass can operate at older sludge ages and are less vulnerable to harmful chemicals. When it comes to pharmaceutical residues in wastewater, biofilms outperform activated sludge in terms of micropollutant removal speed. Biofilm stratification is caused by concentration and redox potential gradients. Most microbes in the outer layers are adept at decomposing easily biodegradable substrates, whereas those in the interior layer focus on more resistant compounds. The presence of microbial consortia that multiply slowly and are adept at decomposing refractory compounds is fostered by the longer age and higher biomass concentration in biofilms [119,120,121].
Not only that, activated sludge has a threshold of 5 mg/L, a tenfold increase over the level demonstrated to be harmful to immobilized biomass. Harmful substances have less of an impact on microbial development due to the reduced diffusion that happens inside biofilm layers and support holes. Biofilms have a greater toxicity threshold than activated sludge because of this characteristic, which is absent in the latter [122,123].
When it comes to aerobic granular wastewater treatment systems, there is a lack of data about the removal of BPA. Sequencing batch biofilter granular reactors achieved an astounding 93% BPA removal, much beyond the 72% rate observed in conventional activated sludge processes. Granules have excellent BPA removal capacity because of many factors, such as their low sludge output, high biomass concentration (40 g/L), and sludge age (up to six months). When it comes to lowering endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) like BPA, microalgal cultures provide an extra option alongside bacterial cultures. After incubating cells with a microalgal culture, one approach to BPA elimination involved causing the compound to accumulate in the cells [124].

6. Future Prospects of Microplastic Pollution

Concerns regarding the potential impacts of microplastic pollution on human health and physiological processes have intensified in recent years as awareness of this pressing environmental issue has escalated. Recent studies have highlighted that microplastics can be transported through the air, potentially affecting human health [125]. Previous research suggests that microplastics may affect the immune system, potentially leading to inflammation or other health issues [126]. Studies have raised alarms about how microplastics can enter the human body through various pathways, including ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact. This growing attention underscores the urgency for research to better understand the long-term effects of microplastics on human biology and to formulate effective strategies for mitigating their presence in our environment. Recent research efforts are uncovering a deeper understanding of microplastics and their potential consequences for both the environment and human health. Researchers have also explored the use of magnetic nanoparticles to remove microplastics from water. As studies continue to explore the origins, distribution, and accumulation of microplastics, scientists are increasingly aware of their pervasive presence in ecosystems, waterways, and the food chain as discussed above. Researchers are exploring strategies to combat microplastic pollution, including promoting the creation of sustainable, circular economies to minimize plastic waste [127]. These ongoing and incoming investigations aim to comprehend not only the ecological ramifications but also the long-term health effects that microplastics may pose to living organisms, highlighting the urgent need for effective strategies to mitigate their impact. One of the emerging concerns is inhalation exposure as airborne microplastics have been identified in the atmosphere [128]. These minute particles could potentially be inhaled, settling within the respiratory tract and raising apprehensions about respiratory issues and inflammation [129]. Therefore, future studies on microplastics should delve deeper into the levels of inhalation exposure individuals experience, assessing not only the extent of this exposure but also the potential respiratory health effects associated with it [130]. Additionally, it will be essential to evaluate the biological mechanisms by which microplastics may affect respiratory health, considering factors such as toxicity, inflammation, and potential long-term impacts on various respiratory and cardiovascular organ systems. By adopting a comprehensive approach, future research can provide valuable insights and inform public health policies and environmental regulations aimed at mitigating the risks associated with microplastic pollution. Another pivotal focus area is the effects of microplastics on the presence of microorganisms in the gut [131]. The gastrointestinal system is prone to the accumulation of these particles, which may upset the delicate balance of the gut microbiota, which is crucial to human health. Changes in the makeup of the gut microbiota may have an impact on the immunological response, metabolism, and digestion, among other functions, and may be a factor in a variety of health issues. Concerns regarding chronic exposure and related health hazards are also raised by the bioaccumulation and biomagnification of microplastics through aquatic creatures, which allows them to enter the human food chain through seafood intake. Thus, forthcoming research will delve into the intricate interactions between microplastics, chemical contaminants, and human health [132].

7. Conclusions

Microplastics have a very high potential for bioaccumulation because of their size. Many studies show that microplastics are now a ubiquitous pollutant in the aquatic environment. It is found in beach sediments, subsea and deep sediments, both in the water column and on the surface of the water. Microplastics, like many environmental toxins, typically pass through the bodies of most organisms without causing significant accumulation. This suggests that their harmful effects are often related to the levels of exposure rather than the presence of the particles themselves. As articulated in classical toxicology, “the dose makes the poison”, emphasizing that the impact of a toxic substance depends greatly on the quantity and duration of exposure. In the context of microplastics, this principle underscores the urgent need for comprehensive research and improved methodologies to assess the exposure levels of both humans and other living organisms. Enhanced understanding of how microplastics interact within biological systems is essential for evaluating potential health risks and developing effective strategies to mitigate their impact on ecosystems and human health. Different exposure and effect pathways require additional investigation. For instance, if microplastics are ingested, they can block the gastrointestinal tract, impairing digestion and absorption processes. Additionally, they may cause physical damage to blood vessels, leading to inflammation and stress. Furthermore, microplastics can decrease energy supply and disrupt respiratory processes.
Quantifying microplastic contamination, evaluating its effects on human health and marine life, and creating cutting-edge remediation methods are the main goals of the study. Establishing sample and analysis procedures, creating consistent data formats, and defining terminology and classification schemes are all examples of standardization requirements. Global collaboration, extended producer responsibility, reducing the use of single-use plastics, and raising awareness and educating people are all examples of policy integration. We can successfully reduce microplastic pollution and safeguard human health and marine life by combining policies, standardizing procedures, and giving priority to research.
New research techniques and a range of educational initiatives are needed to manage environmental conservation and shield the ecosystem from these dangerous polymers. Raising public awareness of the detrimental consequences of microplastics is a pressing need in this industry. This would promote a number of developments aimed at lowering the consumption and usage of plastic and its derivatives. Recycling and gathering plastic pieces are the most crucial strategy to reduce the amount of plastic that enters the ecosystem. The wisest course of action is to cease production and switch to plastic items in order to prevent further risk.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: A.M.; methodology: A.P.; data curation: A.P.; formal analysis and investigation: P.K.; visualization: P.K.; writing: P.K.; original draft preparation: A.P.; writing—review and editing: P.K., A.P., A.A. and S.C.; supervision: P.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was not supported by any funding agency.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing is not relevant to this paper because it is a review article. This publication does not contain any newly produced or analyzed data.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the Principal of Bankura Christian College, Bankura, for his immense support and for providing the necessary facilities to carry out this work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have declared no conflicts of interest for this article.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
ROSReactive Oxygen Species
NDSLNational Digital Science Library
PRISMAPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis
PPPolypropylene
PCPolycarbonate
PSUPolyarylsulfone
PSPolystyrene
TPEThermoplastic elastomers
PETPolyethylene terephthalate
PURPolyurethane
PMMAPolymethyl methacrylate
PVCPolyvinyl chloride
PPPolypropylene
PAPolyamides
ACActivated carbon
ECsEmerging contaminants
EDCsEndocrine-disrupting chemicals

References

  1. Geyer, R.; Jambeck, J.R.; Law, K.L. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci. Adv. 2017, 3, e1700782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Gorman, M. Environmental Hazards-Marine Pollution; ABC-CLIO: Santa Barbara, CA, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  3. Beall, G. By design: World War II, plastics, and NPE. Available online: www.plasticstoday.com/imm/articles/design-world-war-ii-plastics-and-npe (accessed on 5 July 2024).
  4. Jambeck, J.R.; Andrady, A.; Geyer, R.; Narayan, R.; Perryman, M.; Siegler, T.; Wilcox, C.; Lavender Law, K. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 2015, 347, 768–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Phuong, N.N.; Vergnoux, A.Z.; Poirier, L.; Kamari, A.; Châtel, A.; Mouneyrac, C.; Lagarde, F. Is there any consistency between the microplastics found in the field and those used in laboratory experiments? Environ. Pollut. 2016, 211, 111–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Vert, M.; Doi, Y.; Hellwich, K.H.; Hess, M.; Hodge, P.; Kubisa, P.; Rinaudo, M.; Schué, F. Terminology for bio-related polymers and applications (IUPAC Recommendations 2012). Pure Appl. Chem. 2012, 84, 377–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: 2001 Facts and Figures; EPA/530-R-03-011; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2003.
  8. Derraik, J.G.B. The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: A review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2002, 44, 842–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lebreton, L.C.M.; van der Zwet, J.; Damsteeg, J.W.; Slat, B.; Andrady, A.; Reisser, J. River plastic emissions to the world’s oceans. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 15611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cauwenberghe, L.V.; Vanreusel, A.; Mees, J.; Janssen, C.R. Microplastic pollution in deep-sea sediments. Environ. Pollut. 2013, 182, 495–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. PEMRG. Plastics-The Facts 2012: An Analysis of European Plastics Production, Demand and Recovery for 2011; Plastics Europe Market Research Group: Brussels, Belgium, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  12. Nayanathara Thathsarani Pilapitiya, P.G.C.; Ratnayake, A.S. The world of plastic waste: A review. Clean. Mater. 2024, 11, 100220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Goldstein, M.C.; Goodwin, D.S. Gooseneck barnacles (Lepas spp.) ingest microplastic debris in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre. Peer J. 2013, 1, e184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Barnes, D.K.A.; Galgani, F.; Thompson, R.C.; Barlaz, M. Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2009, 364, 1985–1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kalogerakis, N.; Karkanorachaki, K.; Kalogerakis, G.C.; Triantafyllidi, E.I.; Gotsis, A.D.; Partsinevelos, P.; Fava, F. Microplastics generation onset of fragmentation of polyethylene films in marine environment mesocosms. Front. Mar. Sci. 2017, 4, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Andrady, A.L. Microplastics in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62, 1596–1605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Koelmans, A.A.; Besseling, E.; Shim, W.J. Nanoplastics in the Aquatic Environment. Critical Review. In Marine Anthropogenic Litter; Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., Klages, M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 325–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Alabi, A.Q.; Ologbonjaye, K.I.; Awosolu, O.; Alalade, O.E. Public and Environmental Health Effects of Plastic Wastes Disposal: A Review. J. Toxicol. Risk Assess. 2019, 5, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Tiwari, B.R.; Lecka, J.; Pulicharla, R.; Brar, S.K. Microplastic pollution and associated health hazards: Impact of COVID-19 pandemic. Curr.Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 2023, 34, 100480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sun, M.Y.; Guo, J.Y.; Wang, X.Y.; Chang, X. Sources and distributions of microplastics and the hazards to plants, animals and human health: A review. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2024, 35, 2301–2312. [Google Scholar]
  21. Wang, T.; Qu, L.; Luo, D.; Ji, X.; Ma, Z.; Wang, Z.; Dahlgren, R.A.; Zhang, M.; Shang, X. Microplastic pollution characteristics and its future perspectives in the Tibetan Plateau. J. Hazard. Mater. 2023, 457, 131711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lee, M.; Kim, H.; Ryu, H.S.; Moon, J.; Khant, N.A.; Yu, C.; Yu, J.H. Review on invasion of microplastic in our ecosystem and implications. Sci. Prog. 2002, 105, 368504221140766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Goyal, T.; Singh, S.; DasGupta, G.; Verma, S.K. Microplastics in environment: A comprehension on sources, analytical detection, health concerns, and remediation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2023, 30, 114707–114721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Vivekanand, A.C.; Mohapatra, S.; Tyagi, V.K. Microplastics in aquatic environment: Challenges and perspectives. Chemosphere 2021, 282, 131151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Li, Y.; Tao, L.; Wang, Q.; Wang, F.; Li, G.; Song, M. Potential Health Impact of Microplastics: A Review of Environmental Distribution, Human Exposure, and Toxic Effects. Environ. Health 2023, 1, 249–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Goswami, S.; Adhikary, S.; Bhattacharya, S.; Agarwal, R.; Ganguly, A.; Nanda, S.; Rajak, P. The alarming link between environmental microplastics and health hazards with special emphasis on cancer. Life Sci. 2024, 355, 122937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Luo, D.; Chu, X.; Wu, Y.; Wang, Z.; Liao, Z.; Ji, X.; Ju, J.; Yang, B.; Chen, Z.; Dahlgren, R. Micro- and nano-plastics in the atmosphere: A review of occurrence, properties and human health risks. J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 465, 133412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Sharma, S.; Chatterjee, S. Microplastic pollution, a threat to marine ecosystem and human health: A short review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2017, 24, 21530–21547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Lin, Y.-D.; Huang, P.-H.; Chen, Y.-W.; Hsieh, C.-W.; Tain, Y.-L.; Lee, B.-H.; Hou, C.-Y.; Shih, M.-K. Sources, Degradation, Ingestion and Effects of Microplastics on Humans: A Review. Toxics 2023, 11, 747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Haldar, S.; Muralidaran, Y.; Míguez, D.; Mulla, S.I.; Mishra, P. Eco-toxicity of nano-plastics and its implication on human metabolism: Current and future perspective. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 861, 160571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hoang, V.H.; Nguyen, M.K.; Hoang, T.D.; Ha, M.C.; Huyen, N.T.T.; Bui, V.K.H.; Pham, M.T.; Nguyen, C.M.; Chang, S.W.; Nguyen, D.D. Sources, environmental fate, and impacts of microplastic contamination in agricultural soils: A comprehensive review. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 950, 175276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sridharan, S.; Kumar, M.; Singh, L.; Bolan, N.S.; Saha, M. Microplastics as an emerging source of particulate air pollution: A critical review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 418, 126245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Huang, W.; Song, B.; Liang, J.; Niu, Q.; Zeng, G.; Shen, M.; Deng, J.; Luo, Y.; Wen, X.; Zhang, Y. Microplastics and associated contaminants in the aquatic environment: A review on their ecotoxicological effects, trophic transfer, and potential impacts to human health. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 4005, 124187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Naik, R.K.; Naik, M.M.; D’Costa, P.M.; Shaikh, F. Microplastics in ballast water as an emerging source and vector for harmful chemicals, antibiotics, metals, bacterial pathogens and HAB species: A potential risk to the marine environment and human health. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 149, 110525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Khalid, N.; Aqeel, M.; Noman, A.; Rizvi, Z.F. Impact of plastic mulching as a major source of microplastics in agroecosystems. J. Hazard. Mater. 2023, 445, 130455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lin, X.H.; Li, J.P.; Hu, X. Current situation and health harmful effects of microplastics in the environment]. Zhonghua Lao Dong Wei Sheng Zhi Ye Bing Za Zhi 2020, 38, 153–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Ye, J.; Ren, Y.; Dong, Y.; Fan, D. Understanding the impact of nanoplastics on reproductive health: Exposure pathways, mechanisms, and implications. Toxicology 2024, 504, 153792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Masud, R.I.; Suman, K.H.; Tasnim, S.; Begum, M.S.; Sikder, M.H.; Uddin, M.J.; Haque, M.N. A review on enhanced microplastics derived from biomedical waste during the COVID-19 pandemic with its toxicity, health risks, and biomarkers. Environ. Res. 2023, 216 Pt 1, 114434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Zhu, Y.; Che, R.; Zong, X.; Wang, J.; Li, J.; Zhang, C.; Wang, F. A comprehensive review on the source, ingestion route, attachment and toxicity of microplastics/nanoplastics in human systems. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 352, 120039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. GodvinSharmila, V.; Shanmugavel, S.P.; Tyagi, V.K.; Banu, J.R. Microplastics as emergent contaminants in landfill leachate: Source, potential impact and remediation technologies. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 343, 118240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Thushari, G.G.N.; Senevirathna, J.D.M. Plastic pollution in the marine environment. Heliyon 2020, 6, e04709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mitrano, D.M.; Wick, P.; Nowack, B. Placing nanoplastics in the context of global plastic pollution. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2021, 16, 491–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wang, Y.; Huang, J.; Zhu, F.; Zhou, S. Airborne Microplastics: A Review on the Occurrence, Migration and Risks to Humans. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2021, 107, 657–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Rahman, M.N.; Shozib, S.H.; Akter, M.Y.; Islam, A.R.M.T.; Islam, M.S.; Sohel, M.S.; Kamaraj, C.; Rakib, M.R.J.; Idris, A.M.; Sarker, A.; et al. Microplastic as an invisible threat to the coral reefs: Sources, toxicity mechanisms, policy intervention, and the way forward. J. Hazard. Mater. 2023, 454, 131522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lee, W.K.; Thévenod, F. Cell organelles as targets of mammalian cadmium toxicity. Arch Toxicol. 2020, 94, 1017–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zhang, Q.; Xu, E.G.; Li, J.; Chen, Q.; Ma, L.; Zeng, E.Y.; Shi, H. A Review of Microplastics in Table Salt, Drinking Water, and Air: Direct Human Exposure. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 3740–3751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Cavazzoli, S.; Ferrentino, R.; Scopetani, C.; Monperrus, M.; Andreottola, G. Analysis of micro- and nanoplastics in wastewater treatment plants: Key steps and environmental risk considerations. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2023, 195, 1483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Zhou, Y.; Wang, J.; Zou, M.; Jia, Z.; Zhou, S.; Li, Y. Microplastics in soils: A review of methods, occurrence, fate, transport, ecological and environmental risks. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 748, 141368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Li, T.; Liu, R.; Wang, Q.; Rao, J.; Liu, Y.; Dai, Z.; Gooneratne, R.; Wang, J.; Xie, Q.; Zhang, X. A review of the influence of environmental pollutants (microplastics, pesticides, antibiotics, air pollutants, viruses, bacteria) on animal viruses. J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 468, 133831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Pham, V.H.T.; Kim, J.; Chang, S. A Valuable Source of Promising Extremophiles in Microbial Plastic Degradation. Polymers 2024, 16, 2109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Osman, A.I.; Hosny, M.; Eltaweil, A.S.; Omar, S.; Elgarahy, A.M.; Farghali, M.; Yap, P.S.; Wu, Y.S.; Nagandran, S.; Batumalaie, K.; et al. Microplastic sources, formation, toxicity and remediation: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2023, 21, 2129–2169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Martí, E.; Martin, C.; Cózar, A.; Duarte, C.M. Low abundance of plastic fragments in the surface waters of the red sea. Front. Mar. Sci. 2017, 4, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hidalgo-Ruz, V.; Thiel, M. Distribution and abundance of small plastic debris on beaches in the SE Pacific (Chile): A study supported by a citizen science project. Mar. Environ. Res. 2013, 87, 12–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lo, H.S.; Xu, X.; Wong, C.Y.; Cheung, S.G. Comparisons of microplastic pollution between mudflats and sandy beaches in Hong Kong. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 236, 208–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Doyle, M.J.; Watson, W.; Bowlin, N.M.; Sheavly, S.B. Plastic particles in coastal pelagic ecosystems of the Northeast Pacific ocean. Mar. Environ. Res. 2011, 71, 41–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Norén, F. Small Plastic Particles in Coastal Swedish Waters; KIMO Sweden: Göteborg, Sweden, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  57. Murray, F.; Cowie, P.R. Plastic contamination in the decapod crustacean nephrops norvegicus (linnaeus, 1758). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62, 1207–1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Cheung, L.; Lui, C.; Fok, L. Microplastic contamination of wild and captive flathead grey mullet (mugil cephalus). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Li, J.; Yang, D.; Li, L.; Jabeen, K.; Shi, H. Microplastics in commercial bivalves from china. Environ. Pollut. 2015, 207, 190–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Li, H.X.; Ma, L.S.; Lin, L.; Ni, Z.X.; Xu, X.R.; Shi, H.H.; Yan, Y.; Zheng, G.M.; Rittsch, D. Microplastics in oysters Saccostrea cucullata along the pearl river estuary, China. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 236, 619–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hahladakis, N.J.; Costas, A.V.; Weber, R.; Iacovidou, E.; Purnell, P. An overview of chemical additives present in plastics: Migration, release, fate and environmental impact during their use, disposal and recycling. J. Hazard. Mater. 2018, 344, 179–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Karlsson, T.M.; Kärrman, A.; Rotander, A.; Hassellöv, M. Comparison between manta trawl and in situ pump filtration methods, and guidance for visual identification of microplastics in surface waters. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 5559–5571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Sorasan, C.; Edo, C.; González-Pleiter, M.; Fernández-Piñas, F.; Leganés, F.; Rodríguez, A.; Rosal, R. Generation of nanoplastics during the photoageing of low-density polyethylene. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 289, 117919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Bittelli, M.; Pellegrini, S.; Olmi, R.; Andrenelli, M.C.; Simonetti, G.; Borrelli, E.; Morari, F. Experimental evidence of laser diffraction accuracy for particle size analysis. Geoderma 2022, 409, 115627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Wagner, J.; Wang, Z.; Ghosal, S.; Rochman, C.; Gassel, M.; Wall, S. Novel method for the extraction and identification of microplastics in ocean trawl and fish gut matrices. Anal. Methods 2017, 9, 1479–1490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Song, Y.K.; Hong, S.H.; Jang, M.; Han, G.M.; Rani, M.; Lee, J.; Shim, W.J. A comparison of microscopic and spectroscopic identification methods for analysis of microplastics in environmental samples. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 93, 202–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Araujo, C.F.; Nolasco, M.M.; Ribeiro, A.M.P.; Ribeiro-Claro, P.J.A. Identification of microplastics using Raman spectroscopy: Latest developments and future prospects. Water Res. 2018, 142, 426–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Majewsky, M.; Bitter, H.; Eiche, E.; Horn, H. Determination of microplastic polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP) in environmental samples using thermal analysis (TGA-DSC). Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 568, 507–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Weidner, S.M.; Trimpin, S. Mass spectrometry of synthetic polymers. Anal. Chem. 2010, 82, 4811–4829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection. Sources, Fate and Effects of Microplastics in the Marine Environment: A Global Assessment; Kershaw, P.J., Ed.; Reports and Studies 90; International Maritime Organization: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  71. Duis, K.; Coors, A. Microplastics in the aquatic and terrestrial environment: Sources (with a specific focus on personal care products), fate and effects. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2016, 28, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lassen, C.; Hansen, S.F.; Magnusson, K.; Hartmann, N.B.; Rehne Jensen, P.; Nielsen, T.G.; Brinch, A. Microplastics: Occurrence, Effects and Sources of Releases to the Environment in Denmark; Danish Environmental Protection Agency: Odense, Denmark, 2015.
  73. Zobkov, M.; Esiukova, E. Microplastics in Baltic bottom sediments: Quantification procedures and first results. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 114, 724–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Narloch, I.; Gackowska, A.; Wejnerowska, G. Microplastic in the Baltic Sea: A review of distribution processes, sources, analysis methods and regulatory policies. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 315, 120453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Woodall, L.C.; Sanchez-Vidal, A.; Canals, M.; Paterson, G.L.; Coppock, R.; Sleight, V.; Calafat, A.; Rogers, A.D.; Narayanaswamy, B.E.; Thompson, R.C. The deep sea is a major sink for microplastic debris. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2014, 1, 140317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Fischer, V.; Nikolaus, E.O.; Nils, B.; Schwabe, E.; Brandt, A. Plastic pollution of the Kuril–Kamchatka Trench area (NW pacific). Deep. Sea Res. Part. II. Trop. Stud. Oceanogr. 2015, 111, 399–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Casta-eda, R.A.; Avlijas, S.; Simard, M.A.; Ricciardi, A. Microplastic pollution in St. Lawrence River sediments. Can. J. Fish. Aquatic Sci. 2014, 71, 1767–1771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Thompson, R.C.; Olsen, Y.; Mitchell, R.P.; Davis, A.; Rowland, S.J.; John, A.W.; McGonigle, D.; Russell, A.E. Lost at sea: Where is all the plastic? Science 2004, 304, 838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Sruthy, S.; Ramasamy, E. Microplastic pollution in Vembanad Lake, Kerala, India: The first report of microplastics in lake and estuarine sediments in India. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 222, 315–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Corcoran, P.L.; Norris, T.; Ceccanese, T.; Walzak, M.J.; Helm, P.A.; Marvin, C.H. Hidden plastics of Lake Ontario, Canada and their potential preservation in the sediment record. Environ. Pollut. 2015, 204, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Peng, J.; Wang, J.; Cai, L. Current understanding of microplastics in the environment: Occurrence, fate, risks, and what we should do. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2017, 13, 476–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Eerkes-Medrano, D.; Thompson, R.C.; Aldridge, D.C. Microplastics in freshwater systems: A review of the emerging threats, identification of knowledge gaps and prioritisation of research needs. Water Res. 2015, 75, 63–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Cózar, A.; Echevarría, F.; González-Gordillo, J.I.; Irigoien, X.; Ubeda, B.; Hernández-León, S.; Palma, A.T.; Navarro, S.; García-de-Lomas, J.; Ruiz, A.; et al. Plastic debris in the open ocean. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 10239–10244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Lin, L.; Zuo, L.Z.; Peng, J.P.; Cai, L.Q.; Fok, L.; Yan, Y.; Li, H.X.; Xu, X.R. Occurrence and distribution of microplastics in an urban river: A case study in the Pearl river along Guangzhou City, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 644, 375–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Windsor, F.M.; Tilley, R.M.; Tyler, C.R.; Ormerod, S.J. Microplastic ingestion by riverine macroinvertebrates. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 646, 68–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Wagner, M.; Scherer, C.; Alvarez-Muñoz, D.; Brennholt, N.; Bourrain, X.; Buchinger, S.; Fries, E.; Grosbois, C.; Klasmeier, J.; Marti, T. Microplastics in freshwater ecosystems: What we know and what we need to know. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2014, 26, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Ivleva, N.P.; Wiesheu, A.C.; Niessner, R. Microplastic in aquatic ecosystems. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2016, 56, 1720–1739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Marcharla, E.; Vinayagam, S.; Gnanasekaran, L.; Soto-Moscoso, M.; Chen, W.H.; Thanigaivel, S.; Ganesan, S. Microplastics in marine ecosystems: A comprehensive review of biological and ecological implications and its mitigation approach using nanotechnology for the sustainable environment. Environ. Res. 2024, 256, 119181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Scherer, C.; Weber, A.; Lambert, S.; Wagner, M. Interactions of microplastics with freshwater biota. Freshwater microplastics. In The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry; Wagner, M., Lambert, S., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 58, pp. 153–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Wright, S.L.; Thompson, R.C.; Galloway, T.S. The physical impacts of microplastics on marine organisms: A review. Environ. Pollut. 2013, 178, 483–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Li, J.Y.; Liu, H.H.; Chen, P.J. Microplastics in freshwater systems: A review on occurrence, environmental effects, and methods for microplastics detection. Water Res. 2018, 15, 362–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Alberghini, L.; Truant, A.; Santonicola, S.; Colavita, G.; Giaccone, V. Microplastics in Fish and Fishery Products and Risks for Human Health: A Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 20, 789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  93. Schirinzi, G.F.; Pérez-Pomeda, I.; Sanchís, J.; Rossini, C.; Farré, M.; Barceló, D. Cytotoxic effects of commonly used nanomaterials and microplastics on cerebral and epithelial human cells. Environ. Res. 2017, 159, 579–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Cox, K.D.; Covernton, G.A.; Davies, H.L.; Dower, J.F.; Juanes, F.; Dudas, S.E. Human Consumption of Microplastics. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 7068–7074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Liao, Y.; Yang, J. Microplastic serves as a potential vector for Cr in an in-vitro human digestive model. Sci. Total. Environ. 2020, 703, 134805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Stock, V.; Böhmert, L.; Lisicki, E.; Block, R.; Cara-Carmona, J.; Pack, L.K.; Selb, R.; Lichtenstein, D.; Voss, L.; Henderson, C.J.; et al. Uptake and effects of orally ingested polystyrene microplastic particles in vitro and in vivo. Arch. Toxicol. 2019, 93, 1817–1833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Thubagere, A.; Reinhard, B.M. Nanoparticle-induced apoptosis propagates through hydrogen-peroxide-mediated bystander killing: Insights from a human intestinal epithelium in vitro model. ACS Nano. 2010, 4, 3611–3622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Monti, D.M.; Guarnieri, D.; Napolitano, G.; Piccoli, R.; Netti, P.; Fusco, S.; Arciello, A. Biocompatibility, uptake and endocytosis pathways of polystyrene nanoparticles in primary human renal epithelial cells. J. Biotechnol. 2015, 193, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Lehner, R.; Weder, C.; Petri-Fink, A.; Rothen-Rutishauser, B. Emergence of Nanoplastic in the Environment and Possible Impact on Human Health. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 1748–1765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Winiarska, E.; Jutel, M.; Zemelka-Wiacek, M. The potential impact of nano- and microplastics on human health: Understanding human health risks. Environ. Res. 2024, 251, 118535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Gasperi, J.; Wright, S.L.; Dris, R.; Collard, F.; Mandin, C.; Guerrouache, M.; Langlois, V.; Kelly, F.J.; Tassin, B. Microplastics in air: Are we breathing it in? Curr. Opin, Environ. Sci. Health 2018, 1, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Vianello, A.; Jensen, R.L.; Liu, L.; Vollertsen, J. Simulating human exposure to indoor airborne microplastics using a Breathing Thermal Manikin. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 8670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Catarino, A.I.; Macchia, V.; Sanderson, W.G.; Thompson, R.C.; Henry, T.B. Low levels of microplastics (MP) in wild mussels indicate that MP ingestion by humans is minimal compared to exposure via household fibres fallout during a meal. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 237, 675–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Revel, M.; Châtel, A.; Mouneyrac, C. Micro(nano)plastics: A threat to human health? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 2018, 1, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Grafmueller, S.; Manser, P.; Diener, L.; Diener, P.A.; Maeder-Althaus, X.; Maurizi, L.; Jochum, W.; Krug, H.F.; Buerki-Thurnherr, T.; von Mandach, U.; et al. Bidirectional transfer study of polystyrene nanoparticles across the placental barrier in an ex vivo human placental perfusion model. Environ. Health Perspect. 2015, 123, 1280–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Ma, Y.; Chen, X.; Clayer, F.; Shi, X.; Chen, Y.; Norling, M.; Lin, Y. Rivers of plastic: A socio-economic and topographic approach to modeling plastic transport from catchment to sea. Environ. Res. 2024, 356, 124314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Khan, F.R.; Shashoua, Y.; Crawford, A.; Drury, A.; Sheppard, K.; Stewart, K. ‘The Plastic Nile’: First Evidence of Microplastic Contamination in Fish from the Nile River (Cairo, Egypt). Toxics 2020, 8, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  108. Morais, L.M.S.; Queiroz, A.F.D.S.; Brito, B.K.F.; Fenzl, N.; Soares, M.O.; Giarrizzo, T. Microplastics in the Amazon biome: State of the art and future priorities. Heliyon 2024, 10, e28851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  109. Procop, I.; Calmuc, M.; Pessenlehner, S.; Trifu, C.; Ceoromila, A.C.; Calmuc, V.A.; Fetecău, C.; Iticescu, C.; Musat, V.; Liedermann, M. The first spatio-temporal study of the microplastics and meso–macroplastics transport in the Romanian Danube. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2024, 36, 154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Sofield, C.E.; Anderton, R.S.; Gorecki, A.M. Mind over Microplastics: Exploring Microplastic-Induced Gut Disruption and Gut-Brain-Axis Consequences. Curr. Issues Mol. Biol. 2024, 46, 4186–4202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  111. Demarquoy, J. Microplastics and microbiota: Unraveling the hidden environmental challenge. World J. Gastroenterol. 2024, 30, 2191–2194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Borkow, G.; Bentwich, Z. Chronic immune activation associated with chronic helminthic and human immunodeficiency virus infections: Role of hyporesponsiveness and anergy. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2004, 17, 1012–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Beltran, F.J.; Rivas, F.J.; Montero-de-Espinosa, R. Iron type catalysts for the ozonation of oxalic acid in water. Water Res. 2005, 39, 3553–3564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Wang, B.; Lan, J.; Bo, C.; Gong, B.; Ou, J. Adsorption of heavy metal onto biomass-derived activated carbon: Review. RSC Adv. 2023, 13, 4275–4302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Liu, G.; Ma, J.; Li, X.; Qin, Q. Adsorption of bisphenol A from aqueous solution onto activated carbons with different modification treatments. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 164, 1275–1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Aguayo, S.; Munoz, M.J.; de la Torre, A.; Roset, J.; de la Peña, E.; Carballo, M. Identification of organic compounds and ecotoxicological assessment of sewage treatment plants (STP) effluents. Sci. Total Environ. 2004, 328, 69–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  117. Klečka, G.M.; Gonsior, S.J.; West, R.J.; Goodwin, P.A.; Markham, D.A. Biodegradation of bisphenol A in aquatic environments: River die-away. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2001, 20, 2725–2735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Kang, J.H.; Kondo, F. Effects of bacterial counts and temperature on the biodegradation of bisphenol A in river water. Chemosphere 2002, 49, 493–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Spivack, J.; Leib, T.K.; Lobos, J.H. Novel pathway for bacterial metabolism of bisphenol A. J. Biol. Chem. 1994, 269, 7323–7329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Suzuki, T.; Nakagawa, Y.; Takano, I.; Yaguchi, K.; Yasuda, K. Environmental fate of bisphenol A and its biological metabolites in river water and their xeno-estrogenic activity. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 2389–2396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Chong, N.M.; Chen, Y.S. Activated sludge treatment of a xenobiotic with or without a biogenic substrate during start-up and shocks. Bioresour. Technol. 2007, 98, 3611–3616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Chong, N.M.; Lin, T.Y. Measurement of the degradation capacity of activated sludge for a xenobiotic organic. Bioresour. Technol. 2007, 98, 1124–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. De Wever, H.; Weiss, S.; Reemtsma, T.; Vereecken, J.; Müller, J.; Knepper, T.; Rörden, O.; Gonzalez, S.; Barcelo, D.; Dolores Hernando, M. Comparison of sulfonated and other micropollutants removal in membrane bioreactor and conventional wastewater treatment. Water Res. 2007, 41, 935–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Seyhi, B.; Drogui, P.; Buelna, G.; Blais, J.F. Removal of bisphenol-A from spiked synthetic effluents using an immersed membrane activated sludge process. Sep. Purif. Techno. 2012, 87, 101–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Anthony, J.; Varalakshmi, S.; Sekar, A.K.; Sivasankarasubbiah, K.T.; Harikrishnan, T.; Rangamaran, V.R.; Gopal, D.; Ramalingam, K. Microplastics pollution in Indian marine environment: Sources, effects and solutions. Front. Mar. Sci. 2024, 11, 1512802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Grattagliano, A.; Grattagliano, Z.; Manfra, L.; Libralato, G.; Biandolino, F.; Prato, E. An Overview on Microplastics Hazards to the Marine Ecosystem and Humans’ Health. Water 2025, 17, 916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Li, R.; Dong, Y.; Zhao, Q.; Zheng, M.; Lu, X. Evolution strategies for collaborative governance of marine microplastic pollution from the industry-research integration perspective. Front. Mar. Sci. 2024, 11, 1459393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Soo, J.C.; Wei, C.H.; Chen, J.K.; Dong, G.C.; Liu, Z.S.; Chou, H.C.; Perez, R.L.; Adhikari, A.; Chen, Y.C. Assessment of inhalation exposure to microplastic particles when disposable masks are repeatedly used. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 912, 169428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Wright, S.L.; Kelly, F.J. Plastic and Human Health: A Micro Issue? Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 6634–6647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Vasse, G.F.; Melgert, B.N. Microplastic and plastic pollution: Impact on respiratory disease and health. Eur. Respir. Rev. 2024, 33, 230226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Li, B.; Ding, Y.; Cheng, X.; Sheng, D.; Xu, Z.; Rong, Q.; Wu, Y.; Zhao, H.; Ji, X.; Zhang, Y. Polyethylene microplastics affect the distribution of gut microbiota and inflammation development in mice. Chemosphere 2020, 244, 125492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Campanale, C.; Massarelli, C.; Savino, I.; Locaputo, V.; Uricchio, V.F. A Detailed Review Study on Potential Effects of Microplastics and Additives of Concern on Human Health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Culturally Adapted, Clinician-Led, Bilingual Group Exercise Program for Older Migrant Adults: Single-Arm Pre–Post-Intervention
Previous
Suicide-Related Mortality Trends in Europe, 2012–2021
Next