Группа авторов

Plastic and Microplastic in the Environment


Скачать книгу

plants (WWTP); (ii) sewage treatment overflow during high‐volume rain events; and (iii) runoff from agricultural or public lands. In recent literature, sources of MPs in personal care and cosmetic products and clothing have been reported (Gouin et al. 2015). Sundt et al. (2014) tried to attempt a detailed study of source apportionment for Norway; primary as well as secondary sources that release MPs and in the study, and made the conclusion that the MPs from tire dust are the sources for the largest contribution in the Baltic Sea with a small contribution from other consumer products. Data for other terrestrial sources of MPs are almost nonexistent, for example, agricultural and urban soils (Lwanga et al. 2017). Literature suggests that potential sources of MPs from agricultural equipment or use of WWTP products in agriculture along with landfill waste disposal sites soil pose a threat to the environment, which have not been assessed in detail (Wagner et al. 2014). As per literature, polythene (PE) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) are found to be the major polymer type found in freshwater samples (Figure 2.3, Li et al. 2020).

Schematic illustration of composition of microplastics found in freshwater samples.

      Source: Modified from Li et al. 2020.

      Two of the areas in riverine plastic pollution studies where there is almost no data is how MPs transport changes along the river, and that temporal variation remains unknown. More studies can help in increasing our understanding of the origins, sinks, and accumulation zones in catchments. Most studies that we have come across focused on the movement of MPs plastic in specific river cross‐sections (Crosti et al. 2018; van Emmerik et al. 2018) or the output from complete river systems (Tramoy et al. 2019). A study conducted in the Los Angeles rivers indicated significant temporal variations in plastic transport within one year (Moore et al. 2011). A study in rivers of Indonesia even suggested monthly variations on plastic transport (van Emmerik et al. 2019a,b).

      The plastic emission from Asian rivers is estimated to be significantly high, which may be due to various factors such as high population density, a large quantity of primary MPs production, and hydrological regimes with heavy rainfalls. This results in huge MP waste transport from Asian continent to the oceans; 86% of the total global input, with an estimated annual input of 1.21 million tons (Lebreton et al. 2017). Lebreton et al. (2017) estimated that the Chinese Yangtze River catchment is the largest contributor, followed by the Ganges River catchment. With the growing awareness in recent years, some studies are focusing on Asian rivers (Blettler et al. 2018; van Emmerik et al. 2019a; Jambeck et al. 2015; OCMCBE 2015). Surface samplings at the Chinese Yangtze River mouth showed considerably higher plastic concentrations than any other sampled river worldwide (Zhao et al. 2014), with a reported 4137 particles per cubic meter. The significant differences between sampled estuarine concentrations and nearshore monitoring in the area confirmed that the Yangtze River is a major regional source of plastic input into the marine environment. Kataoka et al. (2019) reported of the MP concentrations on 29 Japanese river surfaces, which may be a source of MPs for the MP hotspot in the East Asian seas. They found MPs in 31 of the 36 sites and demonstrated that concentration of MPs in the river basins were dependent on population density, urbanization, and biological oxygen demand (BOD), which suggested that river water quality and plastic pollution in rivers are related.

      2.5.3 The Problem of Freshwater Microplastics in Developing Countries

      2.5.4 Status of India's Freshwater Plastic Problem