and coasts of East Asia, the Mediterranean Sea, the Portuguese coasts, the rivers of
England, and parts of the eastern United States were the most polluted areas. The
vast majority of microplastics were composed of polyethylene (PE), polypropylene
(PP), or polystyrene (PS), and the forms that predominated were fibers, fragments,
and pellets. Finally, a brief revision of publications based on sorption of chemicals
on microplastics and their effect on freshwater organisms is also reported.
Keywords Microplastics · Marine debris · Freshwater · Emerging contaminants ·
Sorption · Polymer identification · Risk assessment
1.1 Introduction
In the last years, contamination produced by microplastics has become a concern
problem due to the environmental damage they cause and their harmful effects on
organisms. These particles can be primary, which are manufactured by humans with
some proposal, or secondary, which result from the physical and chemical degradation of macroplastics in the environment (Cole et al. 2011). Primary microplastics
can be found in some personal care products, drilling fluids for extracting oil or
natural gas, sandblasting for cleaning, some boat paints, or the loss of pellets from a
plastic manufacturing industry (Duis and Coors 2016; Sundt et al. 2014). On the
other hand, secondary microplastics can be produced by the tire wear, the washing of
synthetic clothes, or the physical-chemical degradation of larger macroplastics
(De Falco et al. 2018; Karlsson et al. 2018; Sommer et al. 2018).
Microplastics are found in almost every marine and freshwater environment on
the Earth and also on beaches, sediments, bottled water, or food (Hamid et al. 2018;
Novotna et al. 2019; Vandenberg et al. 2007). Figure 1.1 shows sampling of
sediment on a Spanish beach in order to determine the presence of microplastics.
The amount of microplastics in aqueous media is still increasing due to the growth in
worldwide plastic production, which was 348 Mt in 2017 (Plastics Europe 2018).
Research on these particles and their concentration in the marine and
freshwaterenvironments has not ceased to grow. There are citations of the presence
of microplastics in all types of environments, including those considered to be the
most virgin or distant from the sources of production of these particles, such as the
depths of the oceans or Arctic ice (Obbard et al. 2014; Woodall et al. 2014). Not only
their widespread distribution is important, but they are accessible to consumption by
an extensive diversity of organisms.
One of the most important environmental problems caused by microplastics is
ingestion by aquatic organisms when confused with plankton (Egbeocha et al. 2018;
Fossi et al. 2012; Taylor et al. 2016). The presence of microplastics in the digestive
tract of marine species has been demonstrated in numerous studies. There are a lot of
species that are affected by this problem, such as molluscs, cetaceans, bivalves,
pinnipeds, and zooplankton (Botterell et al. 2019; De Sá et al. 2018; Gallo et al.
2018; Lusher 2015; Nelms et al. 2019). These studies showed that almost all
2
V. Godoy et al.
England, and parts of the eastern United States were the most polluted areas. The
vast majority of microplastics were composed of polyethylene (PE), polypropylene
(PP), or polystyrene (PS), and the forms that predominated were fibers, fragments,
and pellets. Finally, a brief revision of publications based on sorption of chemicals
on microplastics and their effect on freshwater organisms is also reported.
Keywords Microplastics · Marine debris · Freshwater · Emerging contaminants ·
Sorption · Polymer identification · Risk assessment
1.1 Introduction
In the last years, contamination produced by microplastics has become a concern
problem due to the environmental damage they cause and their harmful effects on
organisms. These particles can be primary, which are manufactured by humans with
some proposal, or secondary, which result from the physical and chemical degradation of macroplastics in the environment (Cole et al. 2011). Primary microplastics
can be found in some personal care products, drilling fluids for extracting oil or
natural gas, sandblasting for cleaning, some boat paints, or the loss of pellets from a
plastic manufacturing industry (Duis and Coors 2016; Sundt et al. 2014). On the
other hand, secondary microplastics can be produced by the tire wear, the washing of
synthetic clothes, or the physical-chemical degradation of larger macroplastics
(De Falco et al. 2018; Karlsson et al. 2018; Sommer et al. 2018).
Microplastics are found in almost every marine and freshwater environment on
the Earth and also on beaches, sediments, bottled water, or food (Hamid et al. 2018;
Novotna et al. 2019; Vandenberg et al. 2007). Figure 1.1 shows sampling of
sediment on a Spanish beach in order to determine the presence of microplastics.
The amount of microplastics in aqueous media is still increasing due to the growth in
worldwide plastic production, which was 348 Mt in 2017 (Plastics Europe 2018).
Research on these particles and their concentration in the marine and
freshwaterenvironments has not ceased to grow. There are citations of the presence
of microplastics in all types of environments, including those considered to be the
most virgin or distant from the sources of production of these particles, such as the
depths of the oceans or Arctic ice (Obbard et al. 2014; Woodall et al. 2014). Not only
their widespread distribution is important, but they are accessible to consumption by
an extensive diversity of organisms.
One of the most important environmental problems caused by microplastics is
ingestion by aquatic organisms when confused with plankton (Egbeocha et al. 2018;
Fossi et al. 2012; Taylor et al. 2016). The presence of microplastics in the digestive
tract of marine species has been demonstrated in numerous studies. There are a lot of
species that are affected by this problem, such as molluscs, cetaceans, bivalves,
pinnipeds, and zooplankton (Botterell et al. 2019; De Sá et al. 2018; Gallo et al.
2018; Lusher 2015; Nelms et al. 2019). These studies showed that almost all
2
V. Godoy et al.