36
K. Amrutha et al.
Table 2
(continued)
Sl. no Location
Type of
sample
Environmental
setting
Methodology adopted
Size range (mm)
Average microplastics
concentration
Polymer types
Reporting units
References
26
Port Blair
Bay
Water
Sediment
Zooplankton
Fish
Marine
Stereomicroscope,
ATR-FTIR
<5 mm
Water: 0.93
± 0.59
particles/m 3
Sediments: 45.17
±
25.23 particles/kg
Zooplankton: 0.12
±
0.07
pieces/zooplankter
Fish: 10.65
± 7.83
particles/specimen
Ionomer-surlyn
Polyeteramide
Acrylic
Polyphenylene-sulphide
EVOH
Acrylonitrile
NY
Ethylene vinyl- acetate
Polyisoprene
PU, PVC
Particles/m 3
Particles/kg
Pieces/zooplankton
Particles/specimen
[40]
27
Cochin
Surface
water
Sediments
Fish
Marine
Stereomicroscope (40x),
Raman Spectrometer
<1 mm
1–5 mm.
30 MPs from fishes
PE, PP
–
[51]
28
Tuticorin
sediments
Beach
Dissecting microscope
(40X), FTIR-ATR
0.05–5 mm
25
± 1.58 to 83
± 49
items/m 2
PE, NY, PET, PS, PP,
PVC
Items/m 2
[56]
29
Chennai
Sediments
water
samples
Lake
Stereomicroscope,
ATR-FTIR, SEM- EDX
<5 mm
5.9 particles/L in water
27 particles/kg in
sediments
PP, PS
Particles/L
Particles/kg
[39]
30
Andaman and
Nicobar
Sediments
Beach
Stereozoom Microscope
with online digital camera,
ATR-FTIR
>0.1–0.45
µm micro 73 to 151
items
PVC, PS, Nylon, PE, PP No: of particles
[67]
31
Maharashtra,
Karnataka
and Goa
Sediments
Beach
Stereo zoom microscope,
ATR-FTIR
1–5 mm
43.6
± 1.1 to
346
± 2
items/m 2
PE, PP
Items/m 2
[73]
32
Tamilnadu
Fish
Marine
Stereomicroscope (10
× &
20x), FTIR-ATR, SEM
1.4–9.3 mm
20 particles out of 190
fishes.
Avg. ingestion: 8.95%
PE, PET, PA
No. of particles
Percentage
[61].
(continued)