Next Article in Journal
Urban Source Apportionment of Potentially Toxic Elements in Thessaloniki Using Syntrichia Moss Biomonitoring and PMF Modeling
Previous Article in Journal
Enhancement in Lithium Recovery from Spent Lithium Batteries by Nanofiltration Membranes
Previous Article in Special Issue
Method Validation: Extraction of Microplastics from Organic Fertilisers
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Environments
Volume 12
Issue 6
10.3390/environments12060187
environments-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Convergence Research for Microplastic Pollution at the Watershed Scale

by
Heejun Chang
1,*,
Elise Granek
2,
Amanda Gannon
2,
Jordyn M. Wolfand
3 and
Janice Brahney
4
1
Department of Geography, Portland State University, Portland, OR 97201, USA
2
Department of Environmental Science and Management, Portland State University, Portland, OR 97201, USA
3
Shiley School of Engineering, University of Portland, Portland, OR 97203, USA
4
Department of Watershed Sciences, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Environments 2025, 12(6), 187; https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12060187
Submission received: 17 April 2025 / Revised: 28 May 2025 / Accepted: 29 May 2025 / Published: 3 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Editorial Board Members’ Collection Series: Plastic Contamination)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Microplastics are found in Earth’s atmosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere, pedosphere, and ecosphere. While there is a growing interest and need to solve this grand challenge in both the academic and policy realms, few have engaged with academics, policymakers, and community partners to co-identify the problem, co-design research, and co-produce knowledge in tackling this issue. Using a convergence research framework, we investigated the perception of microplastic pollution among different end users, delivered educational materials to K-12 teachers and practitioners, and identified key sampling points for assessing environmental microplastic concentrations in the Columbia River Basin, United States. Three community partner workshops identified regional issues and concerns associated with microplastic pollution and explored potential policy intervention strategies. The stakeholder survey, co-designed with community partners, identified varying perceptions around microplastic pollution across educators, government employees, non-profit employees, and industry practitioners. Pre- and post-test results of teacher workshops show increases in participants’ knowledge after taking a four-week summer class with the knowledge being translated to their students. Community partners also helped develop a unique passive sampling plan for atmospheric deposition of microplastics using synoptic moss samples and provided freshwater samples for microplastic quantification across the basin. Our study drew three major lessons for successfully conducting convergence environmental research—(1) communication and trust building, supported by the use of key-informants to expand networks; (2) co-creation through collaboration, where partners and students shaped research and education to enhance impact; and (3) change-making, as project insights were translated into policy discussions, community outreach, and classrooms.

1. Introduction

Microplastics are defined as plastic particles less than 5 mm in length. Microplastics enter the environment either as primary products (e.g., microbeads in toothpaste, cosmetics, microfibers in synthetic fabrics) or as secondary products from the breakdown of large plastic debris over time [1,2]. Since commercial production of plastics began in the mid-20th century, global production and the associated release of microplastics into the environment have increased exponentially. Globally, plastic production is projected to increase from 464 Mt in 2020 up to 884 Mt in 2050 [3]. Without transformative policy interventions and associated behavioral changes, microplastics are projected to accumulate exponentially in Earth’s systems while contributing to warming the globe due to the expansion of global plastic production [4] and aquatic food dilution, by displacing organisms’ diet with non-nutritious microplastics, in the coming decades [5].
Environmental microplastic contamination is now one of the grand challenges in the Anthropocene [6,7,8,9]. Microplastics have been found in all sampled ecosystems, from within deep sea creatures to protected wilderness areas at high altitudes and latitudes [10,11,12] because of long-distance transport and deposition of microplastics produced elsewhere by wind and water. Sources of microplastics to the environment include, but are not limited to, the following: tire and road wear particles [13], cigarette filters [14], agriculture [15,16], stormwater [17,18], wastewater [19,20], and septic systems [21]. Microfibers, with clothing as one of the main sources, are the dominant microplastic found in most environments. While some sources of microfibers have been identified and fully characterized (i.e., wastewater), information about other sources is emerging [22]. Microplastic sources and transport pathways [23], watershed-scale plastic cycles from the atmosphere to the ocean [24], and spatial and temporal variations in microplastic concentrations are not well understood [25,26,27] and generally lack explicit engagement from diverse community partners [28]. Lastly, there is a disconnect among sources of microplastics, environmental concentration, risks to human and ecological systems, public awareness, and existing policy and management strategies.
No single discipline, sector, or region can tackle this multifaceted global problem or alone identify solutions for this global challenge. Thus, understanding the root causes of and exploring viable solutions to the microplastic problem requires an intentional approach that brings people from multiple disciplines [29] and diverse sectors and communities together, which is the fundamental spirit of convergence research [30]. Convergence research is characterized as a problem-based approach that intersects multiple disciplines [31]. By bringing knowledge, methods, and expertise together, such parties can collaborate to create a deep understanding and integration of multiple disciplines and engagement of diverse practitioners [32,33]. As such, convergence research has a high potential to stimulate multiple innovations from “basic science discovery to translational application” [30]. Initially conceptualized in health and life sciences [34,35], in recent years convergence research has been applied in sustainability science [36,37,38].
With a growing interest in use-inspired research to understand and manage water-related ecosystems in urban regions [39], our convergence project seeks to fill the gaps in studying social and ecological dimensions of microplastic pollution in the freshwater environment. While there have been growing efforts to engage in tackling marine microplastic pollution [40], to our knowledge this is the first study to apply a convergence research approach to microplastic pollution in the freshwater environment. This perspective paper reports how we have (1) developed a conceptual framework to conduct convergent research on microplastic pollution at the watershed scale, (2) engaged with scientists, government agencies, and nonprofits to co-design and co-produce knowledge in addressing environmental microplastic contamination; and (3) drawn lessons from the convergence research process.

2. Convergence Approach for Addressing Microplastic Pollution at the Watershed Scale

A watershed has biophysical components and, when inhabited by humans, is an integrated social and ecological system that contains people, industries, biophysical components, and infrastructure. Watershed processes are influenced by atmospheric, terrestrial, and freshwater processes and exist at the intersection of any combination of social and ecological systems across multiple scales. While river basins have been studied in the context of coupled social and ecological systems [41,42,43], we extend this framework by engaging with diverse stakeholder communities across jurisdictional boundaries in addressing microplastic pollution across scales. With regard to microplastic pollution, many anthropogenic activities affect the source and transport pathways of microplastics within a watershed [27,44,45]. For example, agricultural and land management practices, often associated with regulatory or incentive programs, result in the transport and release of plastics from agricultural fields into stormwater, streams, and the atmosphere (e.g., organic farms using plastic covers to prevent weed growth, application of biosolids [46]). On the other hand, installing prefiltration at the household level allows wastewater treatment plants to more effectively remove microplastics [47] and innovative industrial processes can reduce the release of microplastics into the environment [48]. As a watershed is composed of nested subwatersheds connected from upstream to downstream, the effectiveness of a policy to reduce microplastics in a subwatershed may be minimal if an upstream subwatershed or the atmosphere is the primary source of microplastic, thus requiring regional collaboration [49]. Policies that target reducing atmospheric deposition of microplastics require collaboration beyond watershed and political boundaries [50].
With an area of 668,000 km2, and extending into seven U.S. states and one Canadian province, the Columbia River Basin serves as a prime example of a complex system that comprises urban, rural, and undeveloped areas with different sources and pathways of microplastics. The basin includes pristine mountain ranges that drain to the largest ocean and provides ecosystem services to many tribal communities facing diverse water resource challenges [51]. The low valley and Yakama Nation, which contain fertile alluvial or volcanic deposits, respectively, provide prime agricultural lands. Most major urban centers are developed along the river valley areas, providing various anthropogenic sources of microplastic to the water bodies, leading to human and ecological risks. In particular, some species of Pacific Salmon are susceptible to higher concentrations of microplastics in water, with acute mortality events tied to storm runoff containing tire tread wear particles that release 6PPD-quinone into the environment [52].
A small subset of studies have examined microplastic pollution within the basin, documenting the substantial spatial and temporal variation in microplastic concentration and the effects of anthropogenic activities on the elevated levels of microplastic concentration [53,54,55,56]. However, none of them examined airborne microplastics; thus, the amount of microplastics sourced from atmospheric deposition is currently unknown. Additionally, while some municipalities and water utilities are becoming more interested in understanding potential sources and exploring solutions to curb microplastic pollution, there have been no coordinated efforts at the basin scale. As a team of interdisciplinary scientists, in collaboration with diverse agency and utility partners, we seek to characterize sources of microplastic pollution within the watershed, build regional communities of interest and practice, and identify actionable solutions. Outcomes from this co-production of knowledge and solutions include the identification of previously untargeted sources, management and policy changes to limit emissions, and the education of citizens within the basin. Drawing from the convergence literature, we developed a conceptual diagram to engage with diverse parties across jurisdictional boundaries. Through the coordinated engagement process, we sought to co-identify pressing problems, co-design research methods, and co-create potential solutions to reduce microplastic pollution within the study basin (Figure 1).

3. Results: Engagement Process

To co-identify, co-design, and co-produce knowledge related to the science and policy of microplastic pollution, we engaged diverse communities in four different ways—(1) a series of three stakeholder workshops; (2) community partner surveys co-designed with users; (3) teaching a short course for community and K-12 educators; and (4) community-driven environmental sampling of air and freshwater to identify probable sources of microplastics. Below, we report the process of our convergence research in these key engagement areas.

3.1. Community Partner Engagement

To identify appropriate partners, we began with our existing network of contacts—scientists, practitioners, and policymakers—then used a snowball approach to identify additional partners, representing communities of practice, place, and interest. This approach allowed us to expand our network of engaged partners to include the types of practices covered, the levels of interest, and the geographies (places) that are represented within our partner community. Our network of scientists and practitioners expanded over time, as reflected in the growth and diversity of the workshop participants by geography and sector (Figure 2).
We hosted three workshops during our project period. The first workshop was hosted on Zoom, with most participants invited from the local Portland metropolitan region. The second workshop was a hybrid of in-person and remote format with representatives (including non-governmental organizations) from both Oregon and Washington States. Invited speakers included an Oregon Senate representative and a representative from the Washington Department of Environment to facilitate regulatory information exchange between the two states. The third workshop was hosted in person except for one participant who joined virtually. Participants represented the entire Columbia River basin, including several from the state of Idaho. Additionally, the third workshop had three invited speakers from outside of the Columbia River basin.
Workshop topics were tailored to the interests of workshop attendees and shifted from researcher-driven to participant-driven as we progressed. Based on the feedback from the first workshop, we sent a short survey to prospective workshop participants to ask their preferences on the topics of the second workshop. The project team then grouped similar topics and selected topics mostly chosen by participants. For the third workshop, attendees were asked to select important themes during informational presentations. For the second and third workshops, participants were pre-assigned to and self-selected groups for small-group discussions based on expressed interests, respectively. To facilitate idea-sharing across groups, we included a “jigsaw” component whereby participants were moved to different groups to share small-group discussion highlights. At the end, each small group reported their findings to all workshop participants. Group members shared ideas either using Google Jamboard (for the first workshop) or easel posters (second and third workshops) and with group facilitators via Google Docs. These various ideas were regrouped by the project team and shared with the workshop participants. The primary topics co-identified by workshop participants were (1) the clear definition of microplastics, (2) the identification of unconventional sources of microplastics for regulatory purposes, (3) more research on the human health effects of microplastics, (4) the need for place-based education, (5) more investment in science communication for a variety of forms of dissemination, and (6) the need for a curated website for data and new information sharing. As shown in Figure 3, different parties identified similar incentives or regulatory strategies to reduce microplastic pollution, providing opportunities for mutual appreciation and learning.

3.2. Community-Staged Surveys

To gauge the interests and concerns of relevant engagement partners before the second workshop, the research team co-developed a survey informed by ideas discussed in the first workshop. Questions were developed collaboratively by all members of the research team, allowing for team members who typically work outside of the sphere of social science to provide nuanced input reflective of their own specializations. The questionnaire was designed with three overarching questions in mind: (1) how familiar are our engagement partners with general information about microplastics; (2) what are our partners’ foremost concerns regarding microplastics; and (3) what are our partners’ primary interests regarding potential strategies and solutions for addressing microplastics. The questionnaire was composed of five main sections, focusing on baseline knowledge, questions about what groups are most responsible for addressing microplastics, questions about workshop topics of interest, information sources, and respondent demographics. The survey instrument and its implementation plan were approved by the Institutional Review Board at the lead author’s home institution and issued before the second workshop.
The engagement partner survey was conducted over several times in August–October 2022, using a combination of purposive and snowball sampling from an initial list of seed contacts developed during the community partner engagement step. The questionnaire was distributed as an online form delivered via email. A total of n = 48 responses were collected during the active period. Respondents represented a broad range of work sectors, with a majority working in education (n = 15), government (n = 13), or the nonprofit sector (n = 10) (Figure 4). Of the potential engagement partners that we reached out to, we found there was a particularly low response rate from those working in industry (n = 5), and others (fisheries and agriculture, tribal representatives, n = 5), potentially limiting extrapolations and data interpretation. The challenge of engaging with these groups may stem from multiple factors, including the perceived stigma of industry workers engaging with environmental topics and limited time and resources among local tribes.
When asked about primary concerns surrounding microplastic pollution, there was high interest in how microplastics affect biodiversity, aquatic environments, and the human body. Respondents were also asked to indicate what content they hoped to see reflected in the workshop, with a majority indicating interest in updates on current research in the Pacific Northwest, the current state of science generally, and current policy initiatives.
Several Likert-style statements were presented to gauge perceptions of plastic usage and opinions on plastic pollution’s ranking among other environmental concerns. Responses to these statements saw disparity across sectors, an example of which can be seen in Figure 4. Results of the survey were used to inform presentations, speakers, and general overarching themes of the subsequent workshops.
Each stage of the questionnaire’s development was interwoven with the interdisciplinary nature of the project. Feedback from team members from a broad array of research fields and backgrounds helped create a more nuanced questionnaire that addressed multiple lines of inquiry. The questionnaire was subsequently fine-tuned using direct feedback from the initial pool of survey respondents to create a more well-rounded final product.
One such outcome is an updated and extended version of the questionnaire that was prepared for distribution to two groups of interest: relevant interest groups in Oregon and a sample of registered voters. The survey was developed in response to interests expressed by Oregon decision-makers, and results are reported in a separate study [58]. Identified interest groups included environmentally focused non-governmental organizations, hunting and fishing organizations, members of zoos and aquariums, land trusts, and an array of other relevant organizations. Many of these groups overlapped with or were drawn from recommendations based on the initial stakeholder pool used for workshop development and implementation.

3.3. K-12 Teacher Education

Environmental education can be a critical component of solving grand challenges, such as microplastic pollution [59]. In particular, youth education via curriculum development and experiential learning can provide K-12 educators and students with the necessary tools to increase environmental awareness and take proactive actions to engage with the problem. Thus, we offered a four-week summer class for educational professionals to provide a comprehensive understanding of the science and policy dimensions of global plastic pollution and course content for K-12 students. Several course participants were interested in potentially using class materials for either K-12 (teachers) or public education (public agency practitioners). The four-week class, co-designed by the project team with inputs from a K-12 teacher, was instructed by the entire project team with rotating instruction responsibilities. As shown in Table 1, topics covered plastic lifecycles and production, the global environmental plastic cycle, known sources to the environment and uncertainties, the physical and biological consequences of plastics in the environment, and sample processing and analysis. Because we wanted to include experiential instruction on how data and knowledge are generated, we included a one-day mandatory field and laboratory component during which course participants collected and analyzed environmental samples for microplastic occurrence. Participants were also able to mingle with instructors, graduate and undergraduate students, and each other.
An example class activity included recording a plastic diary describing the frequency of using plastic-based materials in each participant’s everyday life (Figure 5). This activity was designed to increase the awareness of the microplastic pollution issue by reflecting and personalizing their plastic use behaviors, and how use scales across time, as well as groups (classroom) or larger groups (schools). After a week of keeping this diary, course participants assessed how many plastic materials they typically utilize and reassessed their individual behavior. As reflective thinking is suggested as one of the core sustainability competencies [60], this class activity was intended to increase participants’ sustainability practices in their lives.
Nineteen people took the course, including Grade 6-12 educators, informal educators, researchers, and undergraduate and graduate students. Their level of education ranged from post-high-school diploma to PhD. Pre- and post-surveys indicate that participants’ knowledge increased significantly, with self-identification as ‘very familiar’ increasing from 16% to 60%. Course participants reported that the course materials were incorporated into four K-12 classrooms across broad topics, including Political Science, Environmental Science, and General Science. Students within these classes experienced the material to various degrees ranging from slide show presentations (passive learning) to experiential learning, including a research project on microplastic pollution and science communication. In at least one school, the material led to the creation of an environmental club. Those course participants who did not incorporate the material believed the subject matter was too difficult for their students’ level.

3.4. Environmental Sampling

While our initial plan was to collect only river water samples along an urban and rural gradient based on previous studies [54,55], participants at the first workshop identified atmospheric sources as a key gap in our understanding of microplastic contamination in the Columbia River Basin. We recognized our initial approach was based on our own previous research, expertise, and bias, and what was not the ‘most needed’ data for the region. Thus, we decided to focus on collecting air samples, given the limited amount of information about aerially captured microplastics in urban versus rural environments. The team decided to utilize moss growing on street trees as a passive sampler [61]. Moss sample collection patterns were designed in consultation with vested parties who participated in the first workshop, as well as experts in the field, including a United States Forest Service scientist who trained our faculty and student team on moss collection protocols and processing [61].
Sampling sites were co-identified with workshop participants. The project team initially identified Portland as our urban site and Hood River as our rural site; however, workshop participants identified the need for a control site outside of the Portland metropolitan area’s airshed and identified the east side of Mt. Hood, at a similar elevation to our urban and rural samples, as an appropriate control. Workshop participants helped identify hotspots at which sampling should take place: recycling centers, plastics distributors, and tire and automotive businesses, as well as along smaller and larger roadways with varying speed limits and types of vehicular traffic, to capture tire wear and road wear particle release. This recommendation by community partners led us to include either side of a state highway, though we were unable to sample on both sides of the recommended federal highways due to limited capacity and funding. Additionally, due to resource constraints, we were unable to collect sediment samples co-located with our moss samples (a recommendation made by partners). The final selected sampling sites are shown in Figure 6.
After the third stakeholder workshop, seven participants expressed interest in sending their river water samples to Portland State University for further analysis. These samples were taken along the Columbia River and its main tributary river (i.e., Willamette River and its tributary McKenzie River) in both the United States and Canadian territory. The majority of the sampling sites were not previously targeted in the region (Figure 6). This collaboration process allowed us to assess the spatial variations in microplastic pollution from nested upstream to downstream sections and potentially identify varying sources. Given the extensive sample processing time, the results from both the moss sampling and freshwater samples from partners will be reported in a separate study.

4. Discussion: Lessons Learned

4.1. Communication and Trust Building

Since project team members had prior experience working closely on research teams (e.g., Figure 4 in Gajary et al. [32]) and across disciplinary boundaries, we already appreciated diverse epistemologies and methodologies from different disciplines; thus, the transdisciplinary collaborative approach that we employed naturally flowed from those previous experiences (e.g., [54,62]). Because of this prior exposure to transdisciplinary research teamwork, trust was easily built at the onset of the project, and team conflict was quickly resolved. However, it is important to note that this type of collaborative approach only works when team members are open to diverse types of knowledge and approaches, and with equitable collaboration across disciplines, which O’Rouke et al. [63] refer to as epistemic, social, and technological readiness for integration. Because trust building, through open communication, is a critical component of collaborative convergence research [64], we emphasize the importance of considering interpersonal factors when creating teams to optimize the successful implementation of convergence research [32].
We also emphasize the importance of key informants as critical for making our partnerships and workshops successful. After the second workshop, project team members had exhausted connections within our network of already established partnerships. New community partners were needed to broaden participation. Thus, we reached out to an expert who is well-connected to federal and academic scientists. Through an hour-long conversation, our team obtained additional key contacts within the study region and elsewhere. A second key informant, referred to by the first key informant, provided a comprehensive list of community partners representing professionals from municipalities, utilities, and non-profit organizations in key areas missing from our network (i.e., Idaho). Many of these recommended professionals ultimately attended our third workshop. The critical role that key informants play in engaged research has been well-reported in the literature [65]. By providing reliable sources of information, they can bond, bridge, and link networks to broaden diverse parties’ participation [66].

4.2. Co-Creation Through Collaboration

Having input from diverse community partners allowed us to reflect on the extent to which our research plan was based on our own biases and ‘what we had done previously’ versus developing the most appropriate methods for the questions and data gaps at hand. Community partner engagement and shared knowledge aided our rethinking of the significant data gaps and priorities for the region and the methods we would use for the research component, allowing the research to truly address a major data gap on microplastics in the region. For example, workshop participants co-identified the project priority areas such as using a risk framework for large basin scale modeling as well as a hotspot study to inform risk areas. Subsequently, we sampled these hotspot areas identified by workshop participants.
Within the education component, the summer course materials were co-created with inputs from all project team members as well as a K-12 teacher who participated in pre-course planning meetings. By co-designing the course with an education professional, we were able to target the knowledge gaps between teachers and students and include appropriate pedagogical components for teachers (as students in the course). By co-teaching the summer course for educators, our team expanded our own knowledge of environmental microplastics, learning from each other while co-teaching. Through collective creative acts [32], we were able to integrate different knowledge, methods, and data, while acknowledging different epistemologies.
The convergent nature of the research project allowed participating graduate students from an array of disciplines and universities to interact and collaborate. Project engagement served as an educational opportunity for students to learn from the wealth of specialized experience of the team, thereby developing a more diverse, cross-disciplinary skill set through active collaboration with our members and in turn, allowing the graduate students to more deeply contribute to knowledge co-creation. Training graduate students in a breadth of skills across disciplines is crucial to fostering a community of strong, well-rounded future researchers who innovate and integrate research, policy, and community engagement [62,67]. Students also had the unique opportunity to interact directly with community partners, with the series of workshops helping to develop a network of engagement that introduced students to organizations and individuals far outside of their own discipline. This opportunity led to new connections across traditionally structured boundaries within academia and allowed students to be exposed to the challenges associated with coordinating large, varied groups, including time management challenges and low questionnaire response rates from key informant groups. Collaboratively facing these challenges alongside the project team allowed students to develop new ways to creatively address these broad-reaching and multifaceted problems.

4.3. Change-Making

Community partners who engaged in our convergence education and research incorporated lessons from our workshops in multiple ways. K-12 teachers incorporated course components (e.g., Figure 5a.) and slides into in-class activities with their own students, sparking their students’ interest in microplastics. Based on involvement in and learning from our workshops, our tribal partner requested slides about microplastics in fish tissue sampled in the region for inclusion in presentations to raise awareness among tribal Commissioners. Workshop participants identified that they learned additional strategies to address microplastic pollution that may be more palatable to politically diverse municipalities and decision-makers. Workshop participants also noted that sharing information with other audiences who were not at the table is as valuable as sharing information among those working on the issue to make actionable changes. In response to the participants’ request for more investment in science communication to diverse audiences, co-author Granek and students have created three different versions of brochures on microplastics for citizens, industries, and policymakers [68].
The project team members were able to integrate new knowledge into our own research and strategize translating knowledge for new audiences (K-12 students, teachers). Additionally, the cross-disciplinary development and implementation of our engagement partner survey allowed us to tailor the questionnaire to relevant communities and build a more comprehensive understanding of the wants and needs of our diverse partners. The collaborative skills developed by graduate students through project engagement are broadly applicable to future iterations of co-creating research and education [67]. While implemented at a small scale in the current project, educating the next generation of scholars and practitioners in convergence research [69] can transform graduate education and professional practice from single-discipline, knowledge-based education to transdisciplinary, action-oriented, solution-based training and practices to prepare the next generation to grapple with the wicked problems facing society and our planet.

5. Conclusions

Driven by an urgent and compelling sustainability issue, our convergence research project achieved deep integration across disciplines from environmental social sciences to biogeochemistry, ecology, and hydrology. We demonstrate how a research team can work collaboratively across disciplinary boundaries and with communities of interest and practice to co-design convergence research and co-produce new knowledge while identifying potential areas for advancing science and policy. The project enabled the team members’ convergent thinking for solving complex problems by pushing the boundaries of individual research agendas. Our work echoes the definition of convergence research as a problem-based approach with cross-disciplinary integration [30,31,69].
However, we acknowledge the limitations and hurdles that our team has faced. First, the lack of industry partner representation (e.g., apparel manufacturers, plastic production companies, etc.) was a major challenge throughout the project [70]. Industry partners were either unenthusiastic, unavailable, or unwilling to participate. Since source control is the fundamental solution to reduce microplastics, different mechanisms for engaging industry partners could be explored via mutual interest building or commercialization potential. In this regard, a boundary organization such as a university–industry partnership office could facilitate dialog with industry partners. Second, we were unable to recruit international partners for our project since funding did not allow international travel support.
We stress the importance of effective communication and collaboration among diverse parties, which leads to co-creation and co-production of new knowledge, as key to successful convergence research [71]. Clear and transparent communication from project onset is essential for engaging diverse community partners. When communication is limited to a select group of people, information sharing and new idea generation are also limited, which results in stunted progress on the topic. Implementing and supporting reflective and continuous learning is part of assessment in convergence research. Through mutually respectful collaboration with constant critical reflection, an actionable and transformative research agenda can be successfully created and implemented in convergence research.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.C., E.G., J.M.W. and J.B.; methodology, H.C., E.G., J.M.W. and J.B.; formal analysis, A.G.; investigation, H.C. and A.G.; resources, H.C. and E.G.; data curation, H.C., E.G. and A.G.; writing—original draft preparation, H.C.; writing—review and editing, E.G., A.G., J.M.W. and J.B.; visualization, H.C., A.G. and J.M.W.; supervision, H.C. and E.G.; project administration, H.C. and E.G.; funding acquisition, H.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the United States National Science Foundation (NSF) Sustainable Regional System-Research Network planning grant, grant number 2115447.

Data Availability Statement

The anonymized datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are publicly available.

Acknowledgments

We appreciate all the stakeholder workshop and summer class participants who offered valuable feedback on our project. Special thanks to the staff and students at Portland State University, University of Portland, and Utah State University who made significant contributions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Isobe, A.; Iwasaki, S.; Uchida, K.; Tokai, T. Abundance of non-conservative microplastics in the upper ocean from 1957 to 2066. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Kukkola, A.; Chetwynd, A.J.; Krause, S.; Lynch, I. Beyond microbeads: Examining the role of cosmetics in microplastic pollution and spotlighting unanswered questions. J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 476, 135053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Dokl, M.; Copot, A.; Krajnc, D.; Fan, Y.; Vujanović, A.; Aviso, K.B.; Tan, R.R.; Kravanja, Z.; Čuček, L. Global projections of plastic use, end-of-life fate and potential changes in consumption, reduction, recycling and replacement with bioplastics to 2050. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2024, 51, 498–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Parvez, M.; Ullah, H.; Faruk, O.; Simon, E.; Czédli, H. Role of Microplastics in Global Warming and Climate Change: A Review. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2024, 235, 201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bucci, K.; Bayoumi, M.; Stevack, K.; Watson-Leung, T.; Rochman, C.M. Microplastics may induce food dilution and endocrine disrupting effects in fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas), and decrease offspring quality. Environ. Pollut. 2024, 345, 123551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Borrelle, S.B.; Ringma, J.; Lavender Law, K.; Monnahan, C.C.; Lebreton, L.; McGivern, A.; Rochman, C.M. Predicted growth in plastic waste exceeds efforts to mitigate plastic pollution. Science 2020, 369, 1515–1518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hale, R.C.; Seeley, M.E.; La Guardia, M.J.; Mai, L.; Zeng, E.Y. A global perspective on microplastics. J. Geophys. Res. Ocean. 2020, 125, e2018JC014719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lau, W.W.Y.; Shiran, Y.; Bailey, R.M.; Cook, E.; Stuchtey, M.R.; Koskella, J.; Palardy, J.E. Evaluating scenarios toward zero plastic pollution. Science 2020, 369, 1455–1461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zhao, B.; Richardson, R.E.; You, F. Microplastics monitoring in freshwater systems: A review of global efforts, knowledge gaps, and research priorities. J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 477, 135329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Peng, X.; Chen, M.; Chen, S.; Dasgupta, S.; Xu, H.; Ta, K.; Bai, S. Microplastics contaminate the deepest part of the world’s ocean. Geochem. Perspect. Lett. 2018, 9, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Brahney, J.; Hallerud, M.; Heim, E.; Hahnenberger, M.; Sukumaran, S. Plastic rain in protected areas of the United States. Science 2020, 368, 1257–1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Citterich, F.; Giudice, A.L.; Azzaro, M. A plastic world: A review of microplastic pollution in the freshwaters of the Earth’s poles. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 869, 161847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Fan, Y.; Zheng, J.; Xu, W.; Zhang, Q.; Chen, N.; Wang, H.; Qian, X.; Wang, G. Spatiotemporal occurrence and characteristics of microplastics in the urban road dust in a megacity, eastern China. J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 468, 133733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Soltani, M.; Shahsavani, A.; Hopke, P.K.; Bakhtiarvand, N.A.; Abtahi, M.; Rahmatinia, M.; Kermani, M. Investigating the inflammatory effect of microplastics in cigarette butts on peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Cusworth, S.J.; Davies, W.J.; McAinsh, M.R.; Gregory, A.S.; Storkey, J.; Stevens, C.J. Agricultural fertilisers contribute substantially to microplastic concentrations in UK soils. Commun. Earth Environ. 2024, 5, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Qadeer, A.; Ajmal, Z.; Usman, M.; Zhao, X.; Chang, S. Agricultural plastic mulching as a potential key source of microplastic pollution in the terrestrial ecosystem and consequences. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 175, 105855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kim, J.; Lee, S. Microplastic contamination in urban aquatic environments: Occurrence characteristics in urban streams and stormwater runoff from urban surfaces. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 359, 121050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Werbowski, L.M.; Gilbreath, A.N.; Munno, K.; Zhu, X.; Grbic, J.; Wu, T.; Sutton, R.; Sedlak, M.D.; Deshpande, A.D.; Rochman, C.M. Urban stormwater runoff: A major pathway for anthropogenic particles, black rubbery fragments, and other types of microplastics to urban receiving waters. ACS EST Water 2021, 1, 1420–1428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hu, Y.; Gong, M.; Wang, J.; Bassi, A. Current research trends on microplastic pollution from wastewater systems: A critical review. Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 2019, 18, 207–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Jose, S.; Lonappan, L.; Cabana, H. Prevalence of microplastics and fate in wastewater treatment plants: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2024, 22, 657–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Liu, N.; Cheng, S.; Wang, X.; Li, Z.; Zheng, L.; Lyu, Y.; Ao, X.; Wu, H. Characterization of microplastics in the septic tank via laser direct infrared spectroscopy. Water Res. 2022, 226, 119293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Chan, C.K.M.; Lo, C.K.Y.; Kan, C.W. A systematic literature review for addressing microplastic fibre pollution: Urgency and opportunities. Water 2024, 16, 1988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Rochman, C. Microplastics research—From sink to source. Science 2018, 360, 28–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Horton, A.A.; Dixon, S.J. Microplastics: An introduction to environmental transport processes. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 2018, 5, e1268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Singh, J.; Yadav, B.K.; Schneidewind, U.; Krause, S. Microplastics pollution in inland aquatic ecosystems of india with a global perspective on sources, composition, and spatial distribution. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 2024, 53, 101798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Stanton, T.; Johnson, M.; Nathanail, P.; MacNaughtan, W.; Gomes, R.L. Freshwater microplastic concentrations vary through both space and time. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 263, 114481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Talbot, R.; Chang, H. Microplastics in Freshwater: A global review of factors affecting spatial and temporal variations. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 292, 118393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Jain, R.; Gaur, A.; Suravajhala, R.; Chauhan, U.; Pant, M.; Tripathi, V.; Pant, G. Microplastic pollution: Understanding microbial degradation and strategies for pollutant reduction. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 905, 167098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Waldschläger, K.; Brückner, M.Z.M.; Carney Almroth, B.; Hackney, C.R.; Adyel, T.M.; Alimi, S.O.; Belontz, S.L.; Cowger, W.; Doyle, D.; Gray, A. Learning from natural sediments to tackle microplastics challenges: A multidisciplinary perspective. Earth Sci. Rev. 2022, 228, 104021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. National Research Council (NRC). Convergence: Facilitating Transdisciplinary Integration of Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, Engineering, and Beyond; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sharp, P.A.; Hockfield, S.; Jacks, T. Convergence: The Future of Health. Science 2017, 355, 589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gajary, L.C.; Misra, S.; Desai, A.; Evasius, D.M.; Frechtling, J.; Pendlebury, D.A.; Schnell, J.D.; Silverstein, G.; Wells, J. Convergence Research as a ‘System-of-Systems’: A Framework and Research Agenda. Minerva 2023, 62, 253–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Roco, M.C. Principles of convergence in nature and society and their application: From nanoscale, digits, and logic steps to global progress. J. Nanoparticle Res. 2020, 22, 321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Sharp, P.A.; Langer, R. Promoting convergence in biomedical science. Science 2011, 333, 527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Roco, M.C.; William, S.B. The New World of Discovery, Invention, and Innovation: Convergence of Knowledge, Technology, and Society. J. Nanoparticle Res. 2013, 15, 1946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Norström, A.V.; Cvitanovic, C.; Löf, M.F.; West, S.; Wyborn, C.; Balvanera, P.; Bednarek, A.T.; Bennett, E.M.; Biggs, R.; De Bremond, A.; et al. Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nat. Sustain. 2020, 3, 182–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Phillips, L.A.; Solís, P.; Wang, C.; Varfalameyeva, K.; Burnett, J. Engaged convergence research: An exploratory approach to heat resilience in mobile homes. Prof. Geogr. 2021, 73, 619–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Reed, M.G.; Robson, J.P.; Campos Rivera, M.; Chapela, F.; Davidson-Hunt, I.; Friedrichsen, P.; Haine, E.; Johnston, A.B.D.; Lichtenstein, G.; Lynes, L.S.; et al. Guiding principles for transdisciplinary sustainability research and practice. People Nat. 2023, 5, 1094–1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sauer, J.; Chang, H. People, place, and planet: Global review of use-inspired research on water-related ecosystem services in urban wetlands. Camb. Prism. Water 2024, 2, e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Palmer-Abbs, M.; Deshpande, P.; Karl, C.W. Enabling transition thinking on complex issues (wicked problems): A framework for future circular economic transitions of plastic management in the Norwegian fisheries and aquaculture sectors. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 449, 141420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Cabello, V.; Willaarts, B.A.; Aguilar, M.; del Moral Ituarte, L. River basins as social-ecological systems: Linking levels of societal and ecosystem water metabolism in a semiarid watershed. Ecol. Soc. 2015, 20, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Carpenter, S.R.; Booth, E.G.; Gillon, S.; Kucharik, C.J.; Loheide, S.; Mase, A.S.; Motew, M.; Qiu, J.; Rissman, A.R.; Seifert, J.; et al. Plausible futures of a social-ecological system: Yahara watershed, Wisconsin, USA. Ecol. Soc. 2015, 20, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Scown, M.W.; Flotemersch, J.E.; Spanbauer, T.L.; Eason, T.; Garmestani, A.; Chaffin, B.C. People and water: Exploring the social-ecological condition of watersheds of the United States. Elem. Sci. Anth. 2017, 5, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Karapetrova, A.; Cowger, W.; Michell, A.; Braun, A.; Bair, E.; Gray, A.; Gan, J. Microplastic Distribution in Western North American Snow. J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 480, 136126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wright, S.L.; Ulke, J.; Font, A.; Chan, K.L.A.; Kelly, F.J. Atmospheric microplastic deposition in an urban environment and an evaluation of transport. Environ. Int. 2020, 136, 105411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zhao, H.; Zhou, Y.; Lu, Z.; Ren, X.; Barcelo, D.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, Q. Microplastic pollution in organic farming development cannot be ignored in China: Perspective of commercial organic fertilizer. J. Hazard. Mater. 2023, 460, 132478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Erdle, L.M.; Nouri Parto, D.; Sweetnam, D.; Rochman, C.M. Washing machine filters reduce microfiber emissions: Evidence from a community-scale pilot in Parry Sound, Ontario. Front. Mar. Sci. 2021, 8, 777865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Periyasamy, A.P.; Tehrani-Bagha, A. A review on microplastic emission from textile materials and its reduction techniques. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2022, 199, 109901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Gustavus, M. From Mountain Streams to Urban Rivers: An Assessment of Microplastic Sources and Characteristics. Master’s Thesis, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  50. Zhang, Y.; Kang, S.; Allen, S.; Allen, D.; Gao, T.; Sillanpää, M. Atmospheric microplastics: A review on current status and perspectives. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2020, 203, 103118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Chang, H.; Jung, I.; Strecker, A.; Wise, D.; Lafrenz, M.; Shandas, V.; Moradkhani, H.; Yeakley, A.; Pan, Y.; Bean, R.; et al. Water Supply, Demand, and Quality Indicators of the Spatial Distribution of Water Resources Vulnerability in the Columbia River Basin, USA. Atmos.-Ocean. 2013, 51, 339–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Tian, Z.; Zhao, H.; Peter, K.T.; Gonzalez, M.; Wetzel, J.; Wu, C.; Hu, X.; Prat, J.; Mudrock, E.; Hettinger, R.; et al. A ubiquitous tire rubber–derived chemical induces acute mortality in coho salmon. Science 2021, 371, 185–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kapp, K.J.; Yeatman, E. Microplastic hotspots in the Snake and Lower Columbia rivers: A journey from the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem to the Pacific Ocean. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 241, 1082–1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Talbot, R.; Granek, E.; Chang, H.; Wood, R.; Brander, S. Spatial and temporal variations of microplastic concentrations in Portland’s freshwater ecosystems. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 833, 155143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Valine, A.E.; Peterson, A.E.; Horn, D.A.; Scully-Engelmeyer, K.M.; Granek, E.F. Microplastic prevalence in 4 Oregon rivers along a rural to urban gradient applying a cost-effective validation technique. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2020, 39, 1590–1598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wolfand, J.; Poor, C.J.; Taylor, B.L.H.; Morrow, E.; Radke, A.; Diaz-Gunning, E. Microplastics: The Occurrence in Stormwater Runoff and the Effectiveness of Bioretention Systems for Removal. J. Environ. Eng. 2023, 149, 04023078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Audia, C.; Berkhout, F.; Owusu, G.; Quayyum, Z.; Agyei-Mensah, S. Loops and building blocks: A knowledge co-production framework for equitable urban health. J. Urban Health 2021, 98, 394–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Gannon, A.; Granek, E.F.; Nielsen-Pincus, M.; Harkins, L. Perceptions about potential microplastic interventions: A study on knowledge, concerns, and willingness to pay. Micropl. Nanopl. 2025, 5, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Nohara, N.M.L.; Ariza-Tarazona, M.C.; Triboni, E.R.; Nohara, E.L.; Villarreal-Chiu, J.F.; Cedillo-González, E.I. Are you drowned in microplastic pollution? A brief insight on the current knowledge for early career researchers developing novel remediation strategies. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 918, 170382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Birdman, J.; Wiek, A.; Lang, D.J. Developing key competencies in sustainability through project-based learning in graduate sustainability programs. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2022, 23, 1139–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Donovan, G.H.; Jovan, S.E.; Gatziolis, D.; Burstyn, I.; Michael, Y.L.; Amacher, M.C.; Monleon, V.J. Using an epiphytic moss to identify previously unknown sources of atmospheric cadmium pollution. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 559, 84–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Chang, H.; Granek, E.; Ervin, D.; Yeakley, A.; Dujon, V.; Shandas, V. A community-engaged approach to transdisciplinary doctoral training in urban ecosystem services. Sustain. Sci. 2020, 15, 699–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. O’Rourke, M.; Crowley, S.; Laursen, B.; Robinson, B.; Vasko, S.E. Disciplinary diversity in teams: Integrative approaches from unidisciplinarity to transdisciplinarity. In Strategies for Team Science Success: Handbook of Evidence-Based Principles for Cross-Disciplinary Science and Practical Lessons Learned from Health Researchers; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 21–46. [Google Scholar]
  64. Shrum, W.; Genuth, J.; Chompalov, I. Structures of Scientific Collaboration; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  65. McKenna, S.A.; Main, D.S. The role and influence of key informants in community-engaged research: A critical perspective. Action Res. 2013, 11, 113–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Chazdon, S.A.; Lott, S. Ready for engagement: Using key informant interviews to measure community social capacity. In Community Visioning Programs; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 15–34. [Google Scholar]
  67. Lobo, J.; Alberti, M.; Allen-Dumas, M.; Bettencourt, L.M.A.; Beukes, A.; Tapia, L.A.B.; Chen, W.-Q.; Dodge, A.; Neal, Z.; Perreira, A.; et al. A convergence research perspective on graduate education for sustainable urban systems science. Nat. Urban Sustain. 2021, 1, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Granek, E. Microplastics Pollution: Inside Us. Around US. 2025. Available online: https://sites.google.com/pdx.edu/acelab/research-projects/contaminants (accessed on 8 April 2025).
  69. Liro, M.; Zielonka, A. Towards a geography of plastic fragmentation. Micropl. Nanopl. 2025, 5, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Lawrence, M.G.; Williams, S.; Nanz, P.; Renn, O. Characteristics, potentials, and challenges of transdisciplinary research. One Earth 2022, 5, 44–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Chang, H.; Roe, B.E.; Erkoc, M.; Foo, K.; Heyman, J.; Sanyal, D.; Banerjee, D.; Rushforth, R.R.; Srinivasan, J. Convergence Research in Sustainable Regional Systems. Unpublished work. 2025. [Google Scholar]
Environments 12 00187 g001
Figure 1. A conceptual diagram illustrating the convergence research process by engaging with various parties (ideas adapted from Audia et al., 2021 [57]).
Figure 1. A conceptual diagram illustrating the convergence research process by engaging with various parties (ideas adapted from Audia et al., 2021 [57]).
Environments 12 00187 g001
Environments 12 00187 g002
Figure 2. Conceptual figure illustrating the expansion and strength of the network over time. The light dashed line shows weak connectivity, while the solid line represents strong connectivity among different stakeholders.
Figure 2. Conceptual figure illustrating the expansion and strength of the network over time. The light dashed line shows weak connectivity, while the solid line represents strong connectivity among different stakeholders.
Environments 12 00187 g002
Environments 12 00187 g003
Figure 3. Responsible parties and associated policy interventions to curb environmental microplastics were identified by workshop participants on Google Jamboard during a Zoom meeting in the first workshop. Different colors represent how different actors are responsible for actions to reduce microplastic pollution.
Figure 3. Responsible parties and associated policy interventions to curb environmental microplastics were identified by workshop participants on Google Jamboard during a Zoom meeting in the first workshop. Different colors represent how different actors are responsible for actions to reduce microplastic pollution.
Environments 12 00187 g003
Environments 12 00187 g004
Figure 4. Example of Likert statement responses with significant differences across work area categories.
Figure 4. Example of Likert statement responses with significant differences across work area categories.
Environments 12 00187 g004
Environments 12 00187 g005aEnvironments 12 00187 g005b
Figure 5. (a) The questionnaire used by course participants to track food-related plastic usage over a week as a tool to use with their students, and (b) the resultant total usage of plastics over time.
Figure 5. (a) The questionnaire used by course participants to track food-related plastic usage over a week as a tool to use with their students, and (b) the resultant total usage of plastics over time.
Environments 12 00187 g005aEnvironments 12 00187 g005b
Environments 12 00187 g006
Figure 6. Environmental sampling locations for microplastic contamination, including freshwater samples sent by project partners and moss samples across an urban–rural gradient in Portland and Hood River, Oregon, as recommended by partners.
Figure 6. Environmental sampling locations for microplastic contamination, including freshwater samples sent by project partners and moss samples across an urban–rural gradient in Portland and Hood River, Oregon, as recommended by partners.
Environments 12 00187 g006
Table 1. Topics and associated in-class activities for the microplastic course.
Table 1. Topics and associated in-class activities for the microplastic course.
Week (Team Members)TopicClass Activities
Week 1
(Hydrologist/Educator)		Plastic Production and Lifecycle
  • Why we need plastics, where we don’t
  • How we produce plastics (ingredients, polymer types, where and how of production)
  • Economics of the industry
  • Recycling (what is and isn’t, waste to fuel, incineration, and issues)
  • False solutions
Excel-based plastic footprint
Week 2
(Biogeochemist/Environ. Eng.)		Earth Systems/Atmosphere and Terrestrial Environment
  • Introduction to earth cycles
  • Transport processes and fate
  • Consequences to physical processes
  • Riverine fluxes
Building the plastic cycle
Week 3
(Marine Ecologist/Environ Eng.)		Coastal and Marine Environments
  • Coastal systems
  • Gyres—hot spots
  • Research and uncertainties, challenges
  • Consequences to organisms
Distribution and hotspots of micro- and macro-plastics in waters and organisms
Week 4
(Environ Social Sci/Hydrologist)		Policy and Practice
  • Policy, local, state, federal, global treaties
  • Global issues and plastic emissions (shipping of waste, lack of infrastructure, marketing ploys)
  • Plastic lobbyists
  • Scales and styles of action (individual behavior change versus collective action versus institutional change)
  • Environmental Justice issues/public health
Writing a letter to the legislature
Field dayField and laboratory experience—sample collection and processingField data collection
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chang, H.; Granek, E.; Gannon, A.; Wolfand, J.M.; Brahney, J. Convergence Research for Microplastic Pollution at the Watershed Scale. Environments 2025, 12, 187. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12060187

AMA Style

Chang H, Granek E, Gannon A, Wolfand JM, Brahney J. Convergence Research for Microplastic Pollution at the Watershed Scale. Environments. 2025; 12(6):187. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12060187

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chang, Heejun, Elise Granek, Amanda Gannon, Jordyn M. Wolfand, and Janice Brahney. 2025. "Convergence Research for Microplastic Pollution at the Watershed Scale" Environments 12, no. 6: 187. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12060187

APA Style

Chang, H., Granek, E., Gannon, A., Wolfand, J. M., & Brahney, J. (2025). Convergence Research for Microplastic Pollution at the Watershed Scale. Environments, 12(6), 187. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12060187

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop