water

Review
Micro- and Nano-Plastics Contaminants in the Environment:
Sources, Fate, Toxicity, Detection, Remediation, and
Sustainable Perspectives
Abdulkarim Hasan Rashed 1, * , Gamze Yesilay 2,3 , Layla Hazeem 4 , Suad Rashdan 5 , Reem AlMealla 6 ,
Zeynep Kilinc 3,7 , Fatema Ali 4 , Fatima Abdulrasool 4 and Ayman H. Kamel 5,8

1 Independent Researcher in Environment and Sustainable Development, Manama 18165, Bahrain

2 Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, University of Health Sciences-Turkey,
Istanbul 34668, Türkiye; gamzeku@gmail.com
3 Experimental Medicine Application & Research Center, University of Health Sciences-Turkey,
Validebag Research Park, Istanbul 34662, Türkiye; sandikci1zeynep@gmail.com
4 Department of Biology, College of Science, University of Bahrain, Sakhir 32038, Bahrain;
lhazeem@uob.edu.bh (L.H.); 20183708@stu.uob.edu.bh (F.A.); 20180767@stu.uob.edu.bh (F.A.)
5 Department of Chemistry, College of Science, University of Bahrain, Sakhir 32038, Bahrain;
srashdan@uob.edu.bh (S.R.); ahmohamed@uob.edu.bh (A.H.K.)
6 Nuwat for Environmental Research & Education, Al Jasrah 1003, Bahrain; reem@nuwat.org
7 Department of Biochemistry, Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul 34662, Türkiye
8 Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, Ain Shams University, Cairo 11655, Egypt
* Correspondence: kme2001@hotmail.com

Abstract: The continuous production and widespread applications of synthetic plastics and their
waste present immense environmental challenges and damage living systems. Microplastics (MPs)
have become of great concern in various ecosystems due to their high stability and decomposition
into smaller fragments such as nano-plastics (NPs). Nevertheless, MPs and NPs can be removed from
Citation: Rashed, A.H.; Yesilay, G.;
the environment using several physical, chemical, and microbiological methods. This study presents
Hazeem, L.; Rashdan, S.; a comprehensive narrative literature review, which aims to explore the various types of MPs and NPs,
AlMealla, R.; Kilinc, Z.; Ali, F.; their sources, fate, toxicity, and impact on human health and environment. To achieve this aim, the
Abdulrasool, F.; Kamel, A.H. study employed a comprehensive literature review methodology. In addition, it summarizes various
Micro- and Nano-Plastics methods of sample collection and analysis techniques. Remediation strategies for MPs and NPs
Contaminants in the Environment: removal are assessed and compared. Furthermore, it highlights interlinkages between the sustainable
Sources, Fate, Toxicity, Detection, development goals (SDGs)—specifically SDG 14—and plastic pollution. Overall, priority for research
Remediation, and Sustainable
and development in the field of MPs and NPs impacts on ecological ecosystems is a must as this will
Perspectives. Water 2023, 15, 3535.
enable the development of scientific polices driven by global collaboration and governance which in
https://doi.org/10.3390/w15203535
turn will develop tools and methodologies that measure the impacts and risk of plastic pollution.
Academic Editor: Grzegorz
Nał˛ecz-Jawecki Keywords: degradation of micro and nano-plastics; analysis methods; health and environmental
impacts; remediation techniques; sustainable development goals (SDGs)
Received: 12 September 2023
Revised: 1 October 2023
Accepted: 3 October 2023
Published: 11 October 2023
1. Introduction
Plastic consumption is rapidly increasing worldwide, and the production increased
from 365.5 metric tons in 2018 to 390.7 metric tons in 2021, which averages about a
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
7% increase [1,2] and is expected to double within the next two decades [3]. In addition,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
there are improper or illegal disposal methods for the waste that is produced. Therefore,
This article is an open access article
the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and globe-trotting countries are working on for-
distributed under the terms and
mulating a new legally binding global instrument—a convention—that aims to end plastic
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
pollution across its full cycle in all environments in line with the sustainable development
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
goals (SDGs). The potential effects of micro- and nano-plastics (MPs and NPs (MNPs))
4.0/).

Water 2023, 15, 3535. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15203535 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2023, 15, 3535 2 of 32

on human health and the environment are of great concern because plastic enters every
element of life and then disintegrates into smaller particles [4].
Natural resources that have gone through several chemical and physical reactions
are used to make plastics. The most abundant plastic polymers are polyethylene (PE),
polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), polyvinylchloride (PVC), nylon (PA), cellulose ac-
etate (CA), and thermoplastic polyester (PET). The two primary procedures for plastic pro-
duction are polymerization and polycondensation, which fundamentally change the basic
components into polymer chains [5]. The polymers must undergo further chemical proce-
dures to be recycled into new types of plastic because this process is rarely reversible [6].
Plastics can be designed to meet a variety of application needs with industrial additives
including colors, plasticizers, and stabilizers [7].
Environmental accumulation is increasing due to the chemical stability nature of
plastics. When plastic waste is disposed of, it is subjected to biological, chemical, and
environmental factors and will degrade into vast quantities of MPs (<5 nm) and NPs
(<0.1 mm) [8–11]. In recent years, research has focused on investigating plastic waste and
its impacts on the environment including MPs, all of which has been widely discussed
in the scientific community and the public media. MPs in particular have been success-
fully detected, identified, and quantified using advanced analytical methods. However,
the detection and quantification of NPs in the environment still require additional in-
vestigation. The most widely used analytical methods include visual inspection using
microscopy; spectroscopy methods, such as surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS);
X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS); Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR);
mass spectrometry, such as pyrolysis-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (Py-GC-
MS); and light scattering analysis, for example, dynamic light scattering (DLS) [12]. The
combination of microscopic methods with analytical approaches could be useful for the
precise identification of MPs and NPs in natural samples. Moreover, it is important to
search for innovative methods that are consistent, cost-effective, and can be implemented
in any habitat [13]. To reduce the concentration of MPs and NPs in the environment, the
treatment technologies should be optimized. Even though the remediation and removal
of plastics from the entire water system are impossible. The discharge of plastics into the
environment can be reduced with their removal from wastewater which is the main source
of plastic pollution. Moreover, their presence in the environment brought up the need for
remediation strategies and the existing methods have been classified into four categories:
physical, chemical, biological, and nano-remediation.
Calls for institutional policies to enforce classifications of hazardous polymers have
also been made [14]. Additionally, national policies should explicitly and systematically
reflect environmental obligations [15]. However, very little research has been done on the
quantities, types, and toxicity of NPs, as well as their effects on human health. For instance,
one MP particle can decompose into billions of NP particles, indicating that NP pollution is
widespread [16–18]. Since NPs can pass through biological membranes, it is likely that they
pose greater harm than MPs. This review article is one of the few in literature that highlights
the link between plastic pollution and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
This review aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the production, behaviour,
and degradation of MPs and NPs in the environment, as well as their toxicity and impact
on human health in the literature. The review further summarizes and assesses the various
techniques used for detecting and sampling of these particles. Besides this, the relationship
between plastic pollution and SDGs is investigated. While providing a perspective for
future research.

2. Method
To address the research aim, authors conducted a comprehensive review study using
a literature review methodology. To gather information, the review process was started
with internet searches, the widely recognized electronic databases were utilized such as
Elsevier (sciencedirect.com), Scopus (scopus.com), Springer (springerlink.com), and Google
 2. Method
To address the research aim, authors conducted a comprehensive review study using
a literature review methodology. To gather information, the review process was started
Water 2023, 15, 3535 3 of 32
with internet searches, the widely recognized electronic databases were utilized such as
Elsevier (sciencedirect.com), Scopus (scopus.com), Springer (springerlink.com), and
Google Scholar (accessed on August 2023). Besides that, the most relevant existing interna-
Scholar (accessed on
tional publications August
such as UN2023). Besides
reports. that, the
The focus wasmost relevant
on MNPs’ existing
articles international
within the last 10
publications such as UN reports. The focus was on MNPs’ articles
years, except for lack of recent literature. It took around four months to completewithin the last 10the
years,
re-
except for lack of recent literature. It took around four months to complete
search process. Our research had different goals and used varying approaches including the research pro-
cess. Our research
descriptive had different
techniques goals and
and gathering used varying
information from approaches
primary and including
secondary descriptive
sources.
techniques and gathering information from primary and secondary
We focused on studying the main issues related to plastic pollution, specifically sources. We focused
MNPs,on
studying the main issues related to plastic pollution, specifically MNPs,
and their impact on human health, environment, and sustainability. This review com- and their impact
on human health, environment, and sustainability. This review comprised three stages:
prised three stages: formulating research aims, selecting and evaluating studies, and ana-
formulating research aims, selecting and evaluating studies, and analyzing the content
lyzing the content and findings of the selected articles. The search terms used were “plas-
and findings of the selected articles. The search terms used were “plastic(s) pollution”,
tic(s) pollution”, “microplastics” OR “MPs”, AND “nanoplastics” OR “NPs”. The results
“microplastics” OR “MPs”, AND “nanoplastics” OR “NPs”. The results were filtered to
were filtered to include only peer-reviewed and scholarly articles. The filtering of pub-
include only peer-reviewed and scholarly articles. The filtering of published articles is
lished articles is based on the occurrence, sources, fate, toxicity, detection, remediation,
based on the occurrence, sources, fate, toxicity, detection, remediation, and sustainability
and sustainability of MNPs.
of MNPs.
The search was repeated for all possible results to make sure that all the related peer-
The search was repeated for all possible results to make sure that all the related peer-
reviewed and scholarly articles were obtained. To ensure the suitability of the selected
reviewed and scholarly articles were obtained. To ensure the suitability of the selected
articles, we considered research terms and their synonyms. Accordingly, we reviewed all
articles, we considered research terms and their synonyms. Accordingly, we reviewed all
articles that contained a term associated with plastic pollution in their titles or keywords,
articles that contained a term associated with plastic pollution in their titles or keywords,
as well
as well as
as all
all articles
articles whose
whose abstracts
abstracts featured words related
featured words related to
to research
research terms.
terms. Thus, this
Thus, this
review provides a comprehensive perspective of the current academic
review provides a comprehensive perspective of the current academic debate on plastic debate on plastic
pollution issues
pollution issues and
and its
its impact
impact on on human
human health
health and
and the
the environment.
environment. After
After analyzing
analyzing the
the
search results, they were categorized and presented in appropriate
search results, they were categorized and presented in appropriate sections to sections to cover
cover this
this
article’s scope.
article’s scope. Figure
Figure 11 summarizes
summarizes the the methodological
methodological process.
process.

Figure 1. Research
Figure 1. Research method
method of
of the
the literature
literature review.
review.
3. The Occurrence and Sources of Microplastics and Nanoplastics in the Environment
3. The Occurrence and Sources of Microplastics and Nanoplastics in the Environment
MPs and NPs can be classified into primary and secondary sources [19]; the primary
MPs and NPs can be classified into primary and secondary sources [19]; the primary
are plastics produced at micronized scale, including domestic products, cosmetics, and
are plastics produced at micronized scale, including domestic products, cosmetics, and
medicine, while secondary are the result of the degradation of MPs by different processes
medicine,
such while secondary
as mechanical arewave
(erosion, the result of the
action), degradation
chemical of MPs by different
(photooxidation, processes
temperature, cor-
such as mechanical (erosion, wave action), chemical (photooxidation, temperature,
rosion), and biological activities [20–22]. Furthermore, plastics are classified on their corro-
size
sion),macro-
into and biological
(>25 mm;activities
visible to[20–22].
the nakedFurthermore,
eye), meso-plastics
(<25–5aremm; classified on their
visible under size
a light
into macro- (>25 mm; visible to the naked eye), meso- (<25–5 mm; visible
microscope), micro- (5 mm to 0.1 µm; separated under a microscope and identified using under a light mi-
croscope), micro-
spectrometry), (5nano-
and mm to(<0.1
0.1 μm;
µm)separated under aManufactured
plastics [23,24]. microscope and identified
plastics using
contain PP, spec-
PVC,
PE, and PS as part of their chemical composition [25]. The plastic particles are foundPE,
trometry), and nano- (<0.1 μm) plastics [23,24]. Manufactured plastics contain PP, PVC, in
and PS as
various part of their chemical
morphological composition
forms (foam, [25]. The
fibers, pellets, andplastic particles
films), are colors
sizes, and found (Figure
in various2).
morphological formsof
The durability (foam, fibers,
plastic pellets,makes
particles and films),
themsizes, andresistant
highly colors (Figure 2).
to environmental
degradation as they readily adhere to hydrophobic persistent organic pollutants (POPs),
which thus associating them with causing disease and death in numerous aquatic organisms.
Remarkably, MPs and NPs are dispersed into the environment by many means such as
landfills, sludge [26], discharge of wastewater treatment plants, food waste, terrestrial
anthropogenic activities [27], personal care products (e.g., shower gels and shampoos),
industrial abrasives (e.g., PS and plastic powder/fluff), residues from plastic processing
and recycling plants [28], irrigation (lakes, rivers, reservoirs, and groundwater), street
runoff and flooding [29].
Water 2023,15,
Water2023, 15,3535
x FOR PEER REVIEW 44 of
of 32
36

Figure2.2. Plastic
Figure Plastic morphology.
morphology.

The retention
The durabilityand of plastic
transport particles
of MPs makes
and NPstheminhighly resistantand
groundwater to environmental
soil are influenceddeg-
radation as they readily adhere to hydrophobic persistent organic
considerably by their respective parameters (e.g., shape, size, density), soil media (texture, pollutants (POPs),
which thus
moisture, pH,associating
temperature), them and withwater
causing disease
flow (e.g., and deathionic
velocity, in numerous
strength, aquatic
pH) [30]. organ-
Bio-
isms. Remarkably,
turbation is definedMPs and NPs arein
as interference dispersed into theof
the deposition environment
soil and sedimentby many duemeans such
to living
as landfills,
carriers of MPssludge
and [26],
NPs discharge
from shallow of wastewater
soil layers to treatment
deep ones plants, food waste,
by ingestion and terrestrial
excretion
anthropogenic
of microbes [31].activities [27], personal
Mites, collembolan, and care products
certain mammals (e.g., may
showerspreadgels MPs
and andshampoos),
NPs in
soils via chewing,
industrial abrasivesscraping,
(e.g., PS or and
evenplastic
abrasion [32]. Those organisms
powder/fluff), residues from (collembola, mites and
plastic processing
digging mammals)
and recycling could
plants [28],contribute
irrigationto(lakes,
the generation of secondary
rivers, reservoirs, andMPs by crushing street
groundwater), hard
plastic
runoff fragments
and flooding [33]. Many factors affect the quantity of deposition, preservation and
[29].
transport of MPs and
The retention and NPs including
transport human
of MPs andactivities, properties ofand
NPs in groundwater particles
soil are(shape, size,
influenced
and density), weather
considerably conditions,parameters
by their respective and environmental
(e.g., shape, geography [34]. soil media (texture,
size, density),
MPs and
moisture, pH, NPs are generated
temperature), and from
waterland-based sources (80%)
flow (e.g., velocity, and sea-based
ionic strength, sources
pH) [30]. Bio-
(20%) [35]. Terrestrial ecosystems are the main source and
turbation is defined as interference in the deposition of soil and sediment due to living transport paths of MPs and
NPs intoof
carriers marine
MPs and environments
NPs from shallow [36]. In soil
addition,
layersMPs to deepandonesNPs by have been detected
ingestion in the
and excretion
atmosphere including indoor and outdoor environments
of microbes [31]. Mites, collembolan, and certain mammals may spread MPs and NPs [37] and arctic sea ice [38]. Thein
main sources
soils via of MPs
chewing, and NPs
scraping, orin the abrasion
even atmosphere [32].are textiles
Those production,
organisms attrition mites
(collembola, of rubber
and
tires,
digginghousehold,
mammals) andcould
city dust [39], construction
contribute materials
to the generation and waste MPs
of secondary incineration
by crushing[40]. hard
The
indoor atmosphere has higher levels of MPs and NPs due to
plastic fragments [33]. Many factors affect the quantity of deposition, preservation and lower removal by dispersal
mechanisms
transport of MPs [39] which
and NPs their concentration
including humandepends
activities,on room partition,
properties ventilation,
of particles and
(shape, size,
airflow [41].
and density), weather conditions, and environmental geography [34].
Other
MPs and possible
NPs aresources
generatedof MPs fromandland-based
NPs that enter sources the(80%)
human andfood chain are
sea-based the
sources
consumption of drinking water [42] bottled water [43], and
(20%) [35]. Terrestrial ecosystems are the main source and transport paths of MPs and NPs commercial salt [44]. For
instance,
into marine a study conducted[36].
environments in 14Incountries
addition,on MPs tapand
water NPs and bottled
have beenwater showed
detected in thethat
at-
80% of the samples
mosphere includingcontained
indoor and 4.34outdoor
plastic particles/liter,
environments while [37] andanother
arcticexamined bottled
sea ice [38]. The
water and revealed that 90% contained plastic pollutants [45,46]. Since MPs and NPs
main sources of MPs and NPs in the atmosphere are textiles production, attrition of rubber
commonly escape filtration systems and are found in drinking water, removing plastics
tires, household, and city dust [39], construction materials and waste incineration [40].
from water bodies in the size range of 1–10 µm has become a subject of concern [47]. Thus,
The indoor atmosphere has higher levels of MPs and NPs due to lower removal by dis-
MPs may enter the human body commonly through endocytosis and persorption.
persal mechanisms [39] which their concentration depends on room partition, ventilation,
The toxic chemicals are absorbed and accumulated on the surface of MPs and NPs, and
and airflow [41].
their biomagnification poses a new risk to the biosphere in the long run [48]. Wastewater
Other possible sources of MPs and NPs that enter the human food chain are the con-
sludge, organic fertilizers, and agricultural plastic mulch films are some of the dominant
sumption of drinking water [42] bottled water [43], and commercial salt [44]. For instance,
sources of MPs and NPs in the environment [49]. However, many MPs and NPs derived
a study conducted in 14 countries on tap water and bottled water showed that 80% of the
from effluent discharge and agricultural activities pass through freshwater ecosystems,
samples contained 4.34 plastic particles/liter, while another examined bottled water and
such as urban wetlands and natural rivers, to complete land-sea transport. As transition
revealed that 90% contained plastic pollutants [45,46]. Since MPs and NPs commonly es-
zones for substance exchange between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, wetlands may be
cape filtration
essential systems and are
in the environmental found inprocesses
migration drinkingofwater, MPs [50].removing plastics from water
Water 2023, 15, 3535 5 of 32

Evidently, MPs and NPs were observed in wetlands. For instance, analysis of sediment
samples collected from 20 urban wetlands in Australia showed that MPs were observed at
all wetlands with an average abundance of 46 particles/kg of dry sediment while plastic
fragments accounted for 68.5% of all MPs found [50]. Another study conducted on coastal
mangrove wetlands in China indicated that the abundance of MPs in mangrove sediment
ranges between 8.3 and 5738 particles/kg with different MPs shapes including fibers,
films, fragments, foams, and pellets [51]. It was concluded that the areas with intense
human activity such as tourism, harbor transportation, and fisheries, and with dense
vegetation intercept more MPs. In different areas of the Yellow River Delta wetland, MPs
abundances ranged from 136 to 2060 particles/kg, where concentrations of PET ranged
from 536 to 660 µg/kg, and the concentrations of polycarbonate (PC) ranged from 83.9 to
196 µg/kg [52]. This indicates that coastal wetlands are particularly at risk in trapping
plastic waste since they are at the interface of terrestrial and marine systems and tidal
wetlands are subject to plastic waste deposition, as they are within the vicinity of highly
dense human population areas and activities.
Furthermore, PE MPs with sizes ranging from 0.96 to 1.57 mm were detected in some
fish species common in the Arabian Gulf [53]. A study on MP pollution was carried
out in Kuwait, which included analyzing 44 intertidal locations and 87 fish and mussels’
gastrointestinal contents. The findings revealed that only a few MPs were detected in
about 15 locations, but three pieces of MPs were detected in the gastrointestinal tract
of the grouper of fish (locally known as Hamour); and the identified MPs were mainly
PP, PE, and PS [54]. Habib et al., have reported that MPs concentration is highest in
northern shores of the Arabian Gulf [55]. A study by Saif Uddin et al. conducted in
2020 indicated that 50% of the global wastewater influent remains untreated, which adds
about 3.85 × 1016 MPs annually to the aquatic environments [56]. The study concluded
that treating all produced wastewater before its release could lead to a 90% decrease in the
current MPs input into aquatic systems.
MNPs are characterized by their persistence and accumulation in the environment.
Thus, MNPs pollution negatively impacts the entire environment by contaminating the air,
land, and water due to inadequate plastic waste management infrastructure, posing a threat
to ecosystems and human health. MNPs change soil properties, harming biodiversity, and
plant health. Wastewater effluent and sludge often contain significant quantities of plastic;
thus, improper handling of plastic waste can cause plastic to enter terrestrial ecosystems,
either directly or indirectly. Consequently, plastics can enter water and soil when effluent
and sludge are used as fertilizer. As a result, water resources will be impacted.

4. Uptake and Bioaccumulation of Microplastics and Nanoplastics in the Human Body

Inhalation, ingestion, and skin contact (Figure 3) are the three main ways that MPs and
NPs enter the human body [57,58]. Synthetic fabrics and rubber tires are among the MPs
that can be inhaled through the air and come from urban dust [39]. MPs are consumed due
to their prevalence in the food chain and water supplies [59]. MPs and NPs cannot travel
through the skin membrane because it is too fine, but they can enter through wounds, sweat
glands, or hair follicles [60]. Even though MPs and NPs are present in the human body
through all three channels, the risk of absolute exposure is highest from environmental and
seafood particles. This is because these settings are conducive to the long-term weathering
of polymers, leaching of chemical polymer additives, residual monomers, exposure to
contaminants, and the activity of pathogenic microbes [61–65].

4.1. Gastric Exposure

The most significant way that humans consume plastic particles is by ingestion [66].
Although there are no studies particularly examining the toxicity of NPs in people, there
is evidence that MPs are being consumed through food and drink [46]. The discovery
of plastic particles in human feces samples during initial examination confirms this [67].
Yet no research has investigated what happens to the MPs and NPs after they get into
Water 2023, 15, 3535 6 of 32

the gastrointestinal (GI) system. It is important to investigate how the particles move
through the GI tract and if they move past the gut epithelia or remain in the gut lumen.
Given that the tight junction channels’ important pores have a maximum functional size
of about 1.5 nm, it is doubtful that MPs can penetrate at the paracellular level [68]. The
Water 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 36
possibility of their entering through lymphatic tissue and infiltrating the microfold (M) cells
in the peyer’s patches through phagocytosis or endocytosis is particularly probable [69].
Following intraperitoneal injections into mice, 1, 5, and 12 µm polymethacrylate and PS
environmental
particles wereand seafood
observed toparticles. This is because
be phagocytosed these settings
by peritoneal are conducive
macrophages to the
[70,71], and the
long-term weathering of polymers, leaching of chemical polymer
intestinal absorption was observed to be low i.e., 0.04–0.3% [72]. additives, residual mon-
omers, exposure to contaminants, and the activity of pathogenic microbes [61–65].

Figure 3. Ingestion, skin contact, and inhalation are the main routes for MPs and NPs to enter the
Figure 3. Ingestion, skin contact, and inhalation are the main routes for MPs and NPs to enter the
human body (Created in BioRender.com).
human body (Created in BioRender.com).

In comparison to MPs (2–7%), the oral bioavailability level of 50 nm PS NPs is ten to

4.1. Gastric Exposure
one hundred times higher [73,74]. There is no clear relationship between the absorption,
size,The
andmost significant
structure way that
of NPs, whichhumans consumewith
is consistent plastic
theparticles
findingsis by
foringestion
MPs [75].[67].Some
Although there are no studies particularly examining the toxicity of NPs in people, there
studies have demonstrated that different in vitro intestinal models’ ability to absorb NPs
is evidence that MPs are being consumed through food and drink [46]. The discovery of
(50–500 nm) varies substantially, with rates ranging from 1.5 to 10% depending on the
plastic particles in human feces samples during initial examination confirms this [68]. Yet
size, chemical composition, and type of model utilized [11,75,76]. NPs might change after
no research has investigated what happens to the MPs and NPs after they get into the
being ingested, and this will affect how well and how quickly they can be absorbed. In
gastrointestinal (GI) system. It is important to investigate how the particles move through
general, nanoparticles may interact with a variety of substances in the GI tract [77], while
the GI tract and if they move past the gut epithelia or remain in the gut lumen. Given that
a group of proteins known as a “corona” is known to surround them [78,79]. An in vitro
the tight junction channels’ important pores have a maximum functional size of about 1.5
model of human digestion has been found to modify the protein corona, which increases
nm, it is doubtful that MPs can penetrate at the paracellular level [69]. The possibility of
the translocation
their of nanoparticles
entering through [74]. A
lymphatic tissue andrecent analysisthe
infiltrating looked at how
microfold (M)dispersed organic
cells in the
materials interact with metal (oxide) nanoparticles and discovered that
peyer’s patches through phagocytosis or endocytosis is particularly probable [70]. Follow- these interactions
greatly
ing affect agglomeration
intraperitoneal andmice,
injections into deposition [80].
1, 5, and Furthermore,
12 μm organicand
polymethacrylate matter prevalent in
PS particles
water will stick to the surface of nanoparticles. More research should
were observed to be phagocytosed by peritoneal macrophages [71,72], and the intestinal be conducted to fully
understand
absorption theobserved
was mechanismsto be involved in the uptake
low i.e., 0.04–0.3% [73]. of MPs and NPs via the gastric route.
In comparison to MPs (2–7%), the oral bioavailability level of 50 nm PS NPs is ten to
4.2. Pulmonary Exposure
one hundred times higher [74,75]. There is no clear relationship between the absorption,
Inhalation
size, and structureisofthe second
NPs, whichmost frequent
is consistent withway
the for people
findings forto
MPsbe[74].
exposed
Some to MPs and
studies
NPs. Airborne plastic particles, particularly from synthetic fabrics, are present
have demonstrated that different in vitro intestinal models’ ability to absorb NPs (50–500 in indoor
nm) varies substantially, with rates ranging from 1.5 to 10% depending on the size, chem-about
spaces and can cause unintentional inhalation [81]. The lungs’ alveolar surface area is
ical m2 , and theirand
150 composition, tissue
typebarrier is very
of model fine.[11,74,76].
utilized This barrierNPsismight
permeable
changetoafter
nanoparticles
being in- and
allows and
gested, them to will
this enteraffect
the capillary
how wellbloodstream
and how quickly[66].they
Human health
can be problems
absorbed. are caused
In general,
nanoparticles may interact with a variety of substances in the GI tract [76], while a group
of proteins known as a “corona” is known to surround them [78,79]. An in vitro model of
human digestion has been found to modify the protein corona, which increases the trans-
location of nanoparticles [74]. A recent analysis looked at how dispersed organic materials
interact with metal (oxide) nanoparticles and discovered that these interactions greatly
Water 2023, 15, 3535 7 of 32

by the absorption of different particles, especially MPs and NPs, which have the potential
to become deeply entrenched in the lung and either remain there on the alveolar surface
or relocate to different areas of the body [81–84]. Hydrophobicity, surface charge, surface
functionalization, protein coronas, and particle size are some of the variables that influence
how MPs and NPs are absorbed and expelled from the lungs [85].
According to studies looking at PS particle absorption rates in alveolar epithelial cells
in a lab setting, absorption varies with the size of the plastic particles [86–90]. Recent
research on the inhalation of plastic particles by humans has found that urban areas’ air
fallout is a major source of the particles [40]. Dris et al. investigated the concentrations
of MPs in the air inside and outside of two individual residences and one office building.
They revealed that the indoor samples had a concentration of between 1 and 60 fibers/m3 ,
which was significantly higher than the outside samples’ levels, which ranged from 0.3 to
1.5 fibers/m3 [37].

4.3. Dermal Exposure

Another significant source of plastics is the health and beauty industry, particularly
the body and face scrubs applied directly to the skin [13], the exposure is through the
dermal application of nanocarriers for medication delivery. Small particle size and stressed
skin conditions are crucial for skin penetration, despite no definitive data on the effects
of nanocarriers [60]. There is currently no research that has examined how well NPs can
penetrate the skin’s outer layer. Thus far, one study documented nanoparticle penetration
in small quantities via the skin [90].
The stratum corneum, the skin’s outermost layer, serves as a barrier to protect the skin
from harm, toxins, and microorganisms. Corneocytes make up the stratum corneum, which
is bordered by lamellae of hydrophilic lipids such as cholesterol, ceramide, and long-chain
free fatty acids [91]. Plastic particles could enter the body through sweat glands, skin
wounds, or hair follicles, however, absorption through the stratum corneum by polluted
water is deemed as uncommon because MPs and NPs are hydrophobic [60].
Plastic particles’ entry into the body and subsequent distribution throughout the
skin tissue was studied by Alvarez-Roman et al., where pig skin tissue and fluorescent
PS particles with a diameter of 20–200 nm were used [92]. A confocal laser scanning
micrograph of the skin showed that the concentration of 20 nm PS NPs was higher than that
of 200 nm NPs in the hair follicles. To embed themselves into the deeper skin tissue, the
particles need to pass through the stratum corneum, which neither was able to do. These
results were confirmed by Campbell et al., who also found that PS particles with a diameter
of 20–200 nm can only penetrate the skin’s top layers at a depth of 2–3 µm [93]. Further,
Vogt et al. found fluorescent PS nanoparticles with a diameter of 40 nm in the perifollicular
tissue of skin explants that had undergone cyanoacrylate follicular stripping, and this
research established that when particles were given transcutaneously, the langerhans cells
then absorbed them [94].
Moreover, skin damage from UV exposure weakens the skin barrier [95] and causes
an increase in the skin’s penetration by different particles [96,97]. Common components in
body lotions such as urea, glycerol, and hydroxyl acids improved the ability of nanoparticles
to penetrate the epidermal barrier [98].
Kuo et al. highlighted the effects of oleic acid, ethanol, and oleic acid-ethanol enhancers
on the transdermal transport of 10 nm zinc oxide nanoparticles by passing through the
multilamellar lipid areas between corneocytes [99]. They found that each chemical had the
potential to increase the ability of zinc oxide nanoparticles to penetrate the epidermal barrier.
Bouwstra et al. established a three-layer “sandwich model” through crystalline structure
analysis of different lipid lamellae compositions in stratum corneum samples obtained
from human and swine sources [95]. This model presumably prevents big nanoparticles
from penetrating healthy skin.
In conclusion, experiments conducted in vitro and in vivo have proven that MPs and
NPs can enter the human body through the skin barrier. Nevertheless, the basis for all
Water 2023, 15, 3535 8 of 32

these investigations is PS particle modeling. It would be beneficial to undertake additional

research using environmental sample collection to completely comprehend the penetration
properties of MPs and NPs as those samples could contain a range of plastic particles with
various properties.

5. Toxic Effects of MPs and NPs on Human Health

Plastic particles can accumulate within human cells and cause various harmful toxi-
cological effects at cellular and molecular levels [100], trigger the immune system, induce
inflammation, oxidative stress, cytotoxicity, and generate reactive oxygen species (ROS).
The severity of these effects depends on several factors, such as size, type, concentration,
the shape of the plastic particle, and the type of cells exposed [101]. Table 1 summarizes the
results of various studies that have investigated the effects of MPs and NPs on human cells.

Table 1. The effect of different NPs and MPs on different human cells.

Characteristics of Tested
Particle Size Target Cells Effect of MPs and/orNPs on Organisms Ref.
Particles
• Reduced cell viability.
Human umbilical vein • Effects the ability of HUVECs to form tube.
PS MPs 0.5, 1, and 5 µm [102]
endothelial cells (HUVECs)

• Damaged the cell membrane.

PS NPs 100 and 500 nm HUVECs • Induced autophagy. [103]

Human intestinal cell line • Reduced cell viability.

PS MPs 3 and 10 µm • Increased reactive oxygen species. [104]
HT-29

• Changed the structure of the nucleus.

PS NPs 50 nm Human intestinal Caco-2 cells • Changed the genotoxicity biomarkers. [105]

Human intestinal epithelial • Caused cytotoxicity.

PE, PP, PET, and PVC MPs 1–4 µm and 10–20 µm [106]
cell line Caco-2
Human small intestinal • Increased epithelial permeability.
PS NPs. 25, 100 and 1000 nm [107]
epithelium

Mice intestinal tissue and • Damaged the intestinal and liver tissue.
PS MPs 1 µm • Insulin resistance. [108]
liver

Human hepatoma cell line • Remarkable lipidomic changes.

PE MPs and PCBs 40–48 µm [109]
HepG2

• Increased superoxide dismutase activity.

PS NPs 50 nm rat hepatocyte • Increased malondialdehyde content. [110]
• DNA damaged.

• Reduced cell viability.

• Arrested cell cycle.
Human alveolar type II • Upregulated transcription of
PS NPs 25 and 70 nm pro-inflammatory cytokines. [111]
epithelial cell line A549
• Interfered protein expression related to cell
cycle and pro-apoptosis.

• Disturbed cell metabolic activity.

Human alveolar A549 cell • Decreased cell proliferation.
PS MPs 1 and 10 µm [112]
line • Decreased Ki67 protein expression.

Lung epithelial cells • Reduced cell viability.

PS NPs 40 nm [113]
(BEAS-2B cell line)

• Reduced cell viability.

Bronchial epithelium, • Altered gene expression.
PS NPs 40 nm pulmonary alveolar • Redox imbalance. [114]
epithelial cells • Increased proinflammatory mediators.
• Induced cell apoptosis.
• Destructed cell epithelial barrier.
Water 2023, 15, 3535 9 of 32

Table 1. Cont.

Characteristics of Tested
Particle Size Target Cells Effect of MPs and/orNPs on Organisms Ref.
Particles
• Increased intracellular ROS.
• Disrupted mitochondrial membrane
Human primary nasal potential.
PET NPs ~62 nm [115]
epithelial cells • Upregulation of LC3-II and p62 expression.
• Changes in autophagy pathways.

• Beads induced immune response and cell

Beads: 10, 50 and hemolysis.
Peripheral blood
PE MPs beads and fragments 100 µm; Fragments: • Fragments caused cytotoxicity, inflammatory [116]
mononuclear cells
25–75 and 75–200 µm response, cell hemolysis, and produced ROS.

Human monocytes and

PS, PMMA, and PVC NPs 50–310 nm monocyte-derived dendritic • Higher release of cytokines. [117]
cells.
• High cell hemolysis.
Human peripheral blood • Chromosomal damage.
PS NPs. 50 nm • Genomic imbalance. [118]
lymphocytes
• Cytotoxicity.

• High cytotoxicity.
Mouse mononuclear • Induced reactive oxygen species production.
PS NPs and functionalized PS • Changed the mitochondrial membrane
100 nm macrophage (RAW264.7) cell [119]
pristine, PS-COOH, PS-NH2 potential.
line
• Induced apoptosis in macrophage cells.

• Increased inflammatory markers expression

100 nm, NF-κB, MyD88 and NLRP3.
PS NPs Human gingival fibroblasts [120]
600 nm • lowered metabolic activity rate.

Human dermal fibroblast, • ROS generation.

5–25,
HeLa cell line, peripheral • Cancer cells and fibroblasts cell death.
PS MPs 25–75, [121]
blood mononuclear cells • Released hemoglobin and lactose
75–200 µm
(PBMCs) and KATO III cells dehydrogenase.
Water 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 36
Note(s): Microplastics (MPs), nanoplastics (NPs), Polystyrene (PS), polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP),
polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyvinylchloride (PVC), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polymethyl
methacrylate (PMMA).

6. Methods of Microplastics Analysis

6. Methods of Microplastics Analysis
6.1. Visual
6.1. VisualInspection
InspectionMethods
Methods
Visual inspection
Visual inspectiontechniques
techniquesof ofMPs
MPsinclude,
include,observations
observationsmade
madeby bythe
thedirect
directvisual
visual
method with
method with the
the naked
naked eye,
eye, using
using an
an optical
optical microscope,
microscope, and/or
and/orelectron
electronmicroscope,
microscope,
whichare
which areused
usedtoto select,
select, classify
classify MPs,MPs,
andand observe
observe the colour
the colour andofsize
and size the of the object
tested tested
object [122,123]
[122,123] (Figure(Figure 4). These
4). These techniques
techniques are time-consuming
are time-consuming and
and of of low
low accuracy
accuracy [124],
[124], in
in addition, the error rate is negatively related to the particle size
addition, the error rate is negatively related to the particle size [125]. [125].

Figure4.
Figure Classificationof
4.Classification ofvisual
visualinspection
inspectionmethods.
methods.

The advantages of visual inspection method are easy to identify samples that include
a significant amount of large MPs, giving a quick and affordable overall picture of their
abundance. While the limitations are the samples’ nature cannot be established, and the
identification techniques must be combined.
MPs < 100 μm are difficult to identify or observe, even with a microscope [126–128].
Water 2023, 15, 3535 10 of 32
Figure 4. Classification of visual inspection methods.

The advantages
The advantages of
of visual
visual inspection
inspection method
method areare easy
easy to
to identify
identify samples
samples that
that include
include
aa significant
significant amount
amount of large MPs,
of large MPs, giving
giving a
a quick
quick and
and affordable
affordable overall
overall picture
picture of their
of their
abundance. While the limitations are the samples’ nature cannot be established,
abundance. While the limitations are the samples’ nature cannot be established, and the and the
identification techniques must be combined.
identification techniques must be combined.
MPs <
MPs < 100
100 μm
µm are
are difficult
difficult to
to identify
identify or
or observe,
observe, even
even with
with aa microscope
microscope [126–128].
[126–128].
Therefore, the development of technologies for the identification
Therefore, the development of technologies for the identification of MPs of MPsareare crucial
crucial to at-
to attain
tain more
more precise
precise and effective
and effective results.
results.

6.2. Thermal Analytical Methods

presented in
The classification of thermal analytical methods is presented in Figure
Figure 5.
5.

Figure 5. Classification of thermal analysis methods.

The
The Pyr-GC-MS,
Pyr-GC-MS, TED-GC-MS,
TED-GC-MS, and and DSC
DSC approaches
approaches areare mostly
mostly used
used toto identify MPs
identify MPs
in the environment due to their excellent detection accuracy. The advantages and
in the environment due to their excellent detection accuracy. The advantages and disad- disadvan-
tages in addition
vantages to some
in addition important
to some properties
important are summarized
properties in Table
are summarized in 2. An overview
Table of
2. An over-
the application of thermal analytical techniques in detecting MPs is provided in
view of the application of thermal analytical techniques in detecting MPs is provided in Table 3.
Table 3.
Table 2. Comparison of thermal analysis methods in detecting microplastics.

Sample Detection
Method Advantages Disadvantages Ref.
Mass Limit

Long processing times, sample degradation,

Different types of polymers, precise results, great
Pyr-GC–MS high reaction temperatures, and manual 0.5 mg 0.007 mg/g [129,130]
sensitivity, and no sample preprocessing
placement.
High sample mass, no blocking reaction cube, Excessive processing time, sample degradation,
TED-GC–MS 100 mg - [131,132]
and no sample preprocessing and high reaction temperatures
Accurate results, widely applied technique, Long processing times, sample damage,
DSC 3–15 mg - [133,134]
inexpensive and straightforward analysis substrate influence that is easy to see

Table 3. An overview of the thermal analysis application in microplastics.

Method Source of the Sample Type of Sample LOD Sample Abundance Ref.

Pressurized
liquid Soil and PE (3.3 ± 0.3 mg/g)
PE, PP - [135]
extraction & sediment and PP (0.08 ± 0.02 mg/g)
Pyr-GC–MS
PE (fractionation ratio 15:2, 4800 µg/L), PE
PE (fractionation ratio 15:2), PE (Fractionation ratio 17:2, 2500 µg/L), PE
Soil and
(fractionation ratio 17:2), PE (fractionation (Fractionation ratio 18:2, 11,300 µg/L), PP
Pyr-GC–MS sediments of - [136]
ratio 18:2), PP, PS (pyrolysis product Sty), (43,200 µg/L), PS (pyrolysis product Sty,
freshwater
and PS (pyrolysis product aMeSty) 500 µg/L) and PS (pyrolysis product
aMeSty, 1600 µg/L)
Pyr-GC–MS Stomachs of marine fishes PVC, PET, nylon, silica gel, and epoxy resin - - [137]
Pyr-GC–MS Surface water and wastewater PS and PE PS (30 µg/L) and PE (1000 µg/L) - [138]
Fresh sludge
Pyr-GC–MS and (40.5 ± 11.9 × 103 particles/kg) and
Lagoon sludge - - [139]
Nile red dye dehydrated sludge
(36 ± 9.7 × 103 particles/kg)
Pyr-GC–MS and
FTIR
Surface water PVC, PP, and PE 0–110,000 particles/km2 [140]
PE (20.0 µg/mg), PP (5.7 µg/mg), PS
TED-GC–MS Freshwater PE, PS, PET, and PP - [141]
(2.2 µg/mg) and PET (18.0 µg/mg)
TGA, DSC Wastewater PE, PP, PET, PA, PES, PVC, and PU - [142]
DSC Wastewater PE, PP, PA, and PET - [143]
ATR-FTIR and
Dutch beaches - - - [144]
DSC

6.3. Spectral Analytical Method

In comparison to visual recognition alone, the spectral analytical method yields more
accurate information [8]. As of now, spectroscopic techniques can both, detect and verify
Water 2023, 15, 3535 11 of 32

the composition of MPs. This is due to the spectral signal’s ability to reflect the distinctive
characteristic peaks that each type of MP produces. The polymer types of MP particles
with a minimum particle size of 10 µm and 1 µm, respectively, have been determined using
FTIR and Raman spectroscopy.
An overview of the advantages and limitations of spectroscopic analytical techniques
are provided in Table 4.

6.4. Other Analytical Methods

The advantages and limitations of the most popular additional methods for analyzing
MPs are provided in Table 5.
Scanning electron microscopy energy dispersive spectroscopy (SEM-EDS) is typically
paired with vibration spectroscopy as an adjunct to the analysis to detect microplastics.
There is not much research on the independent detection of MPs using SEM-EDS now,
presumably because this technique cannot show chemical composition data [145]. There is
not much research on the detection of MPs by High Performance Liquid Chromatography
(HPLC), and the existing ones do not accurately identify the polymers. Therefore, more
research is recommended. The combination detection of SEM-EDS and HPLC in the
future may overcome the bottleneck of the existing MPs detection studies, based on the
advantages and disadvantages analysis. Table 6 summarizes the findings on additional
MPs analysis techniques.

Table 4. Advantages and limitations of spectroscopic analytical techniques.

Method Particle Size Advantages Limitations

Samples must be IR reactive; <20 µm may not

provide interpretable spectra due to insufficient
Nondestructive, reliable, quick, and credible. absorbance. Non-transparent particles are
ATR-FTIR can study particles >500 µm in size, while Significantly reduced analysis time using automatic challenging to analyze. High in cost and needs skilled
FTIR microscope coupled with FTIR can analyze particles FTIR imaging techniques like FPA, which enables the personnel to operate and process the data. The
<20 µm. quick capture of thousands of spectra within an area ambient matrix has an impact on the detection (e.g.,
using a single measurement. biofilm growth on polymer), which makes it
challenging to interpret the data. To get rid of IR
active water, the sample needs to be processed.
Fluorescence from biological, organic, and inorganic
Enables the investigation of microscopic particles
contaminants interferes heavily and makes it difficult
For particles >1 µm, the microscopy coupled Raman (1–20 µm) with excellent spatial resolution and
to identify MPs.Prior to analysis, the sample must be
Spectroscopy (RS) approach is appropriate. For relatively low sensitivity to water, analyze opaque
Raman Spectroscopy cleaned; crucial Raman acquisition parameters
particles ranging in size from 1 to 20 µm, it is the only and dark particles; perform fast chemical mapping,
include wavelength, laser power, and photo
approach that works. allowing for quick and automatic data gathering and
bleaching. Micro-RS automated mapping is still being
processing.
developed. The analysis by RS is time consuming.

Table 5. The most popular methods for analyzing microplastics: advantages and limitations.

Method Particle Size Advantages Limitations

High vacuum is required to cover the
Analysis is possible for particles with Creates a high-resolution picture of
Scanning ElectronSpectroscopy samples, and there is no precise
diameters as small as a micron. the samples.
identification data available.
Its uses are restricted to
environmental samples since it is
impossible to establish physical
The chemical extraction needs a
Selected polymers have high features, such as size information. Per
Liquid Chromatography sample size of several milligrams to
recoveries. run, only a few samples can be
carry out this examination.
evaluated. By using this procedure,
only particular polymers, such PS and
PET, may be evaluated.

More detailed information about the above-mentioned analytical methods can be

found in Supplementary Material.

6.5. The Evaluation of Analysis Methods

The main analytical technique used now is vibrational spectroscopy, which does not
harm the sample and may reveal the physical and chemical properties of MPs. Additionally,
widely analyzed MPs from water and soil mostly involve FTIR and Raman methods of
vibrational spectroscopy. Research on airborne MPs has slowly begun to surface in recent
years, but most of the work that has been published so far has concentrated on atmospheric
deposition and a particular topic. Additionally, the fluorescence background can readily
Water 2023, 15, 3535 12 of 32

affect Raman, which slows down its development. High spectral noise, spatial resolution,
and a poor ability to identify water-containing materials are all characteristics of FTIR.
Due to the destructive nature of the thermal analytical method’s identification process, it
is impossible to determine the quantity and shape of MPs. The main drawback of Pyr-
GC-MS is that the sample mass is just 0.5 mg and MPs must be manually inserted in the
pyrolysis reaction tube. To fully detect MPs, it is necessary to create a spectrum database of
popular plastic types. TED-GC–MS improves the sample mass to 100 mg and overcomes
the limitation of sample contamination from the reaction tube. However, high temperature,
which can reach 1000 ◦ C, hinders its development. DSC has a promising future in the
analysis of MPs in water. However, this approach needs pretreatment and only effectively
detects MPs of the type of PE and PP. In conclusion, the thermal analytical method’s
reaction temperature is high, and the leakage of MPs’ combustion products contributes to
environmental pollution.
Terahertz spectroscopy (THz) offers the qualities of solid penetration and high sensi-
tivity, but the equipment is expensive and heavy, plus the spectrum signal-to-noise ratio is
poor. High spectrometry imaging (HSI), whose images contain hundreds of small spectral
bands from visible light to infrared and tens of thousands of pixel space, can directly offer
samples of visual effects. As a result, we can swiftly determine the chemical make-up of
MPs including other details like size, shape, and so forth, according to each pixel space.
This technique offers a fresh approach to detecting MP pollution. However, this method’s
quick advancement is slowed down by difficult operation procedures and poor image
quality. In addition, the machine learning technique for detecting MPs in conjunction with
the spectrum analysis technique is still under development. Both HPLC and SEM-EDS are
rarely utilized for MPs identification. Currently, SEM-EDS is mostly utilized to identify
NPs. However, this approach does not offer information about the chemical composition
of plastics. Additionally, HPLC may be modified to analyze huge samples. The chemical
makeup of samples can theoretically be discovered. Currently, SEM-EDS have been used to
identify PA, PS, PE, PP, and PVC in nature. Only their absorption content and amount have
been determined. SEM-EDS must therefore be developed further.

Table 6. Summary of research findings on other analytical methods for microplastics.

Method * Sample Source Sample Type Element Type Sample Abundance Ref.

SEM-EDS 1 , polarized light microscope and

Caspian Sea - C, O, Fe, Ba, Na, Si, and Al - [146]
µ-Raman 2
PP, PE, PS, PET, PVC and PP-PE
SEM-EDS and µ-FTIR 3 East Coast
copolymer
- -- [147]
Cr, Ni, Cu, Zn, Pb, As,
SEM-EDS Sediment - - [148]
and Cd
SEM and XRD 4 Aquatic environment PA, PS, PE, PP, and PVC - - [61]
45 ± 12 particle/kg to
Fluorescence microscopy, FTIR 5 and SEM-EDS Beach PE -
220 ± 50 particles/kg
[149]
178 ± 69 to
µ-FTIR and SEM-EDS Beijiang River - - [150,151]
544 ± 107 particles/kg
FTIR and SEM-EDS Sediment of Suhai lake PE, PP, and PVC - 24 ± 7 to 14 ± 3 particles/kg [152]
HPLC-MS 6 Pet food PET - 1500 ng/g to 12,000 ng/g [153]

* Note(s): 1 Scanning electron microscopy energy dispersive spectroscopy, 2 Raman spectroscopy, 3 Microscope
and fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, 4 X-ray diffraction, 5 Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, and
6 High-performance liquid chromatography mass spectrometry.

The Raman spectrum’s fluorescence background interference must be eliminated.

Modern unconventional Raman spectroscopy techniques including face-off and nonlinear
Raman spectroscopy can increase spectral data signal-to-noise ratios as well as Raman
intensity. The increase in signal strength brought forth by nonlinearity, such as CARS
and SRS, creates a new avenue for the investigation of MPs in real time. Strong signals in
CARS and SRS are only produced by the desired molecular vibration patterns. As a result,
fluorescence interference is reduced, data analysis becomes more accurate, and sample
preparation is no longer required.
Due to its straightforward operation, FTIR technology performs better on MPs > 20 µm.
The impact is greater than that of Raman spectroscopy, even though the detection limit is
lower. Furthermore, the interference of fluorescence background in the Raman spectrum
Water 2023, 15, 3535 13 of 32

is not a concern when using the FTIR approach. The THz technology can be improved
in the future to make use of its high sensitivity and powerful penetration benefits. Given
the size of existing THz and its primary use in the detection of MPs, the development
of a portable THz is a future challenge. A new method for monitoring MP pollution is
offered by the identification and qualitative method of HSI, despite its negative and low
detection limit which only extends to 300 µm. Therefore, lowering the HSI technology’s
detection limit will enable real-time monitoring of MP pollution. SEM-EDS and HPLC are
attractive options since they complement one other in identifying chemical components.
The two approaches can likely be used for the identification of MPs since SEM cannot
obtain the chemical composition while HPLC can. Currently, it is important to establish
a consistent and unified standard detection method for MPs in diverse settings, such as
different habitats. A variety of analytical and data processing techniques, such as machine
learning, should be combined as much as possible for the detection and analysis of MPs
to find a non-destructive, effective, and high-throughput detection method to lower the
detection limit of the current spectral detection techniques.

7. Sampling of MPs and NPs in the Aquatic Environment

MPs and NPs are sampled through water and aquatic sediment collection plus bio-
logical specimens [154–156]. Multiple approaches for sampling MPs and NPs exist, each
has its own advantages and limitations. Sampling method selection is dependent on multi-
ple factors including the objective of the investigation, matrices to be sampled, available
equipment and size limitation of target MPs [157,158]. Overall, sampling MPs from marine
environments can be categorised into three approaches as indicated in Table 7.

Table 7. The categories of sampling approaches and methods.

Sampling Approach Criteria Application Advantages Limitations

Utilized when plastic items Size limitation of detectable
are large enough for MPs is high and less obvious
Selective Sampling identification with the naked Beach sampling Simple & straightforward items are easily overlooked
eye, extracted directly from particularly when mixed with
environmental matrices. other debris.
Collects all MPs- and NPs Sample collection is relatively
Involves collecting the entire
Sediment sampling & present within the sample small in amount which may
Bulk Sampling sample without decreasing its
occasional water sampling regardless of size and negatively affect sample
volume during the sampling.
visibility. representativeness
Used when the entire volume Substantial loss of MPs and
of a bulk sample needs to be NPs may occur as most of the
reduced by fast filtration sample is lost/discarded due
Covers large quantities or
Volume-Reduced Sampling during sampling; thus, only Water sampling to fast filtration, which is
areas of samples.
small fraction of the sample is evident in the MPs’ size being
being preserved for further smaller than the mesh size of
analysis. sampling tool.

Furthermore, there are multiple sampling methods that can be employed for MPs and
NPs in both water and sediment. Water samples can be collected either from the water
column at specific depths or the surface. It is common to use manta nets (trawls) and
neuston nets when sampling surface or near-surface water [157,159]. Their advantages
include: (1) easy to use, (2) samples large volumes of water, (3) captures large number of
MPs. However, certain limitations must be considered as: (1) they are expensive to acquire,
(2) require a boat for use, (3) are time consuming, (4) samples are subjected to potential
contamination by the tow ropes and the boat/vessel, (5) the lowest limit of MPs detection
is 333 µm [157,160].
Commonly used equipment for water column sampling includes plankton nets for sur-
face and near-surface sampling, bongo nets for deep water sampling, continuous plankton
recorders (CPR), multiple opening-closing nets and near-bottom trawls [161–163]. These
come with advantages and limitations, for example, plankton nets are: (1) easy and quick
to use, (2) able to sample medium volumes of water, (3) have a small mesh size (~100 µm)
allowing sampling in a short period of time (i.e., under a minute) and acquires MP concen-
trations 30 times higher than manta nets [164]). However: (1) they are expensive, (2) require
Water 2023, 15, 3535 14 of 32

a boat, (3) require water flow for static sampling, (4) could get clogged or break, and
(5) sample lower volumes of water in comparison to manta nets [157,165].
Other sampling tools include water intake pumps (e.g., shallow-water plankton pump
(SPP), deep-water plankton pump (DPP) and submersible pump) and water collection
bottles [166–168]. Water intake pumps enable sampling of large volumes of water effort-
lessly and provide a choice of mesh size. Nevertheless, they require equipment, and energy
to work and are subjected to potential contamination by the tools, plus they could pose
some difficulty when transporting them between sampling locations [154,157]. Results by
Shi et al., showed that manta nets (trawls) and plankton pumps produced similar MPs
abundance, however, the MPs characterization was significantly different. For example,
the type of MPs in the plankton samples was dominated by fibers (>70%), whereas in the
manta nets (trawls) it accounted for only 14.2% of the samples [159].
The most common mesh size is 333 µm, nonetheless, mesh sizes used in sampling
tools vary from tens of microns to millimetres and MPs recovered from water bodies are
influenced by the sampling tool’s mesh size making data comparison difficult [158].
When resources are limited, manual sieving of water samples is occasionally conducted
as sample collection is easy, it does not require specialized equipment or boat. Despite this,
it is (1) laborious and time-consuming, (2) samples medium water volumes and (3) requires
manual transfer of water using buckets [159]. Filtration of sieving (ex situ) is applied when
conducting volume-reduced sampling, it is easy to collect samples, the sampled water
volume is known and provides a choice of mesh size. Limitations include sampling of low
water volumes; water samples require transportation to the lab for filtration, samples are
subjected to potential contamination by the apparatus and is time-consuming depending
on the mesh size [159].
Seabed sediment is regarded as a long-term sink for MPs and NPs whilst samples are
acquired from the beach or seabed [156,166,169]. Beach sediment sampling is straightfor-
ward, easy to implement, allows rapid sampling and collection of large sample volumes.
The main limitation is variation in the sampled area and depth. Sampling can be done
horizontally (towards the water) or vertically (away) [164]. In addition, it can also be
conducted along a transect in a defined area or within several separate zones [166,170].
To collect larger plastic particles (i.e., 1–5 mm), tools such as tweezers, forceps, metal
shovels are used and/or directly by hand [158,171–173]. This would naturally lead to an
underestimation of MPs presence since it excludes smaller-sized plastics, this is where bulk
sampling is useful as it captures smaller-sized plastics in the sampled sediment. It is best to
avoid sieving sediment samples as it could inflate the number of MPs due to its mechanical
action that could create artificially more MPs [174].
Sampling marine sediment from the seabed entails either using a grab sampler, box
core and/or gravity core, all of which are easy to use allowing multiple sample repli-
cates [175–177]. Limitations include requiring a boat, variation with sampled area and
depth, this can be tackled by collecting several replicates to acquire representative samples.

8. Remediation Strategies and Methods

The widespread MPs and NPs presence in the environment brought up the need for
remediation strategies of these particles and the current methods have been classified into
four categories: physical, chemical, biological, and nano-remediation (Figure 6) [178,179].
While the four categories of remediation techniques are well documented, there are
instances where the remediation process can be simplified into three primary steps, i.e., pri-
mary, secondary, and tertiary treatment. This terminology is often used in wastewater (WW)
recycling and in general, begins with physical or chemical treatments and continues with
bioremediation and filtration [180,181]. Table 8 provides a literature summary of the types
of plastics used in remediation methods, which can be referred to for further information.
Water 2023, 15, 3535 15 of 32

Table 8. Examples of Remediation methods of MPs.

Type of
Material * Used Techniques Refs.
Remediation
PE Physical Fe-Based Coagulation and UF [182]
MPs Physical RO and Nanofiltration [183]
Fiber MPs Physical UF [184]
MPs Physical RO [185]
MPs Physical Dynamic Membrane [186]
polyacrylamide
Physical Sedimentation and Coagulation [187]
(PAM)
PET Physical Primary Sedimentation [179]
PS Physical Coagulation (FeCl3 , PAC) and Sedimentation [188]
PS and PE Physical Coagulation with PAC and FeCl3 [189]
PET/weathered
Physical Coagulation with AlCl3 [190]
PET and TC
Pre-sedimentation, Coagulation, Flocculation, and
MPs Physical [191]
Sedimentation, RSF
PE Physical Ultrasound Treatment [192]
PET Chemical Photolysis [193,194]
PE, PS, PET, and
Chemical UV Radiation [195]
PVC
PE and PS Chemical TiO2 Photocatalysts Under UV Illumination [196]
LDPE Chemical (Pt)-Deposited ZnO Nanorods [197]
Polypyrrole-Coated TiO2 Catalysts Under Solar
PE Chemical [198]
Radiation
PVC Chemical Electro-Fenton-Like System with TiO2 /C [199]
Heterogeneous Photo-Fenton Degradation using ZnO
PVC and PP Chemical Nanorods Coated with Oxide Layer and Fe0 [200]
Nanoparticles
PE, PS, PP, and
Chemical Ozonation [201,202]
PET
Kocuria palustris M16, Rhodococcus sp. 36, and Bacillus
Marine Plastics Bioremediation [203]
strains
PET Bioremediation Ideonella sakaiensis 201-F6 strain [204]
Thermoset
Bioremediation Bacillus, Pseudomonas, and Micrococcus [205,206]
Polymers, PU
LDPE Bioremediation B. gottheilii and B. cereus [207,208]
PE Bioremediation Penicillum, Aspergillus, Basidiomycota and Zygomycota [209,210]
LDPE and HDPE Bioremediation Aspergillus spp., Penicillum spp. [211]
PE, PU, and PP Bioremediation A. clavatus, A. oryzae strain A5, A. fumigatus, and A. niger [212,213]
A. tubingensis, Monascus ruber, M. sanguineus, Monascus
PU Bioremediation [214,215]
sp., and Pestalotiopsis microspora
PET Bioremediation Fusarium, Humicola, and Penicillium [216]
PAM and Small
Nanoremediation Coagulation, Sedimentation and GAC Filtration [187]
Size MP
MPs Nanoremediation Green Nanoscale Semiconductors [217]
Cellulose Nanocrystals, Chitin Nanocrystals, and
MPs Nanoremediation [218]
Lignin-Zeolite Composite Nanofibers
MPs and NPs Nanoremediation IONPs with PDMS-based Hydrophobic Coatings [219]
PE, PET, and PA Nanoremediation M-CNTs [79]
PET Nanoremediation MXene/ZnxCd1-xS Nanocomposite Photocatalysts [220]
Deposited Platinum Nanoparticles on the Surface of
LDPE Nanoremediation [197]
ZnO Nanorods.
MPs Nanoremediation Carbon Nanosprings [221]
MPs Nanoremediation Oxides-MnO2 Core-Shell Micromotors [222]
MPs Bionanoremediation Lysozyme Amyloid Fibrils [223]
* Note(s): Ultrafiltration (UF), reverse osmosis (RO), polyaluminum chloride (PAC), rapid sand filtration (RSF),
granular activated carbon (GAC) filtration, magnetic carbon nanotubes (M-CNTs), polyethylene (PE), microplas-
tics (MPs), nanoplastics (NPs), polyacrylamide (PAM), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polypropylene (PP),
polystyrene (PS), tetracycline (TC), polyvinylchloride (PVC), low-density PE (LDPE), polyurethane (PU), High-
Density PE (HDPE), polyamide (PA).

8.1. Physical Remediation Methods

Physical methods utilize filtration, sedimentation, magnetic separation, ultrasonic treat-
ments, coagulation, and their combinations with different materials like graphene-based filters,
where these methods may have limitations in eliminating all types of plastic particles [224–226].
Membrane filtration methods are used in secondary or tertiary treatment of WW and
utilize methods with different pore sizes such as ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, reverse osmosis
and membrane bioreactor. Removal of MPs depends on some parameters such as shape, size,
and mass of plastic particles. Briefly, reverse osmosis (RO) is a widely used membrane filtration
technique that applies pressure (10–100 bar) to force water molecules through a semi-permeable
membrane, effectively removing MPs based on their size and weight [227]. Compared to other
filtration methods, RO is particularly used for desalination, removal of heavy metals, and other
impurities. Therefore, this method is generally used in water filtration [180,181]. Ultrafiltration
 shovels are used and/or directly by hand [158,171–173]. This would naturally lead to an
underestimation of MPs presence since it excludes smaller-sized plastics, this is where
bulk sampling is useful as it captures smaller-sized plastics in the sampled sediment. It is
best to avoid sieving sediment samples as it could inflate the number of MPs due to its
Water 2023, 15, 3535 mechanical action that could create artificially more MPs [174]. 16 of 32
Sampling marine sediment from the seabed entails either using a grab sampler, box
core and/or gravity core, all of which are easy to use allowing multiple sample replicates
[175–177]. Limitations
(UF) is another include
membrane requiring
filtration a boat,
technique variation
that operateswith sampled area
in low-pressure andbar)
(1–10 depth,
and
this can be tackled by collecting several replicates to acquire representative samples.
utilizes asymmetric pores between 1–100 nm [180]. This method allows the passage of water
and smaller molecules while retaining MPs [223]. Nanofiltration (NF) technique lies between
8.
RORemediation Strategies
and UF in terms of pore and Methods and transport model [228]. It enables the separation
characteristics
The widespread
of particles MPs
based on size andand NPsinteractions.
charge presence inNF themembranes
environment brought
have up the need
shown promising for
results
remediation
in the removalstrategies of these particles
of MPs (>0.005–0.02 µm) byand the current
effectively methods
rejecting have been
particles classified
of larger into
sizes while
four categories:
allowing physical,
the passage chemical,
of smaller biological,
molecules [181]. and nano-remediation (Figure 6) [178,179].

Figure
Figure6.
6.Schematic
Schematicsummary
summaryof
ofMPs
MPsremediation
remediationmethods.
methods.

The limitation of the filtration techniques is membrane fouling or contamination. Dynamic

membrane (DM) technology is gaining popularity for WW treatment due to its affordability,
easy maintenance, and low energy consumption [229]. Unlike traditional methods, DM utilizes
the contaminants present in WW to form a filtration layer, eliminating the need for additional
chemicals [230]. The cake layer that forms act as a secondary membrane, capturing particles
and fouling particles as the WW passes through the supporting membrane. The use of a large
pore-sized mesh or inexpensive porous material as the supporting membrane allows for low
filtration resistance and minimal trans-membrane pressure, enabling gravity-driven operation
without a vacuum system [181]. However, DM filtration has disadvantages related to fluctuating
membrane performance. Excessive fouling and thicker cake layers can lead to a decline in
membrane performance, while some MPs may bypass the formation of a filter cake [181].
Sedimentation is a simple physical separation technique that involves the settling of
particles in a fluid using gravity, also, a cost-effective method for removing larger MPs. The
principle of sedimentation is based on the difference in density between the MPs and the
surrounding fluid, allowing the MPs to settle at the bottom of the tank or basin. Therefore,
sedimentation can be an effective method for the removal of MPs from water. However,
the removal of PP and PE MPs pose a challenge due to their lower density, which results in
longer settling times compared to the water travel time. Consequently, these types of MPs
may not settle effectively during the primary sedimentation process [179].
Coagulation is a widely studied approach for the removal of MPs and includes a
crucial process utilized in water treatment to aggregate small particles into larger flocs and
facilitate the adsorption of dissolved organic matter onto these particles. This allows for the
subsequent removal of impurities through solid/liquid separation techniques. Over time,
advancements in coagulation technology and the development of alternative coagulants
Water 2023, 15, 3535 17 of 32

have expanded the options available for water treatment, allowing for more efficient and
tailored processes to achieve high-quality treated water [231].
High-frequency sound waves generated by ultrasonic devices can cause physical and
chemical changes in water, leading to the agglomeration and precipitation of MPs. Ultra-
sonic treatment has been shown to be effective in removing MPs from WW, surface water,
and seawater. On the other hand, a new hybrid model with advanced oxidation process
(AOPs) was suggested rather than a single usage of ultrasound in WW treatment [232].
In this way, the cost of the WW treatment can be minimized while maintaining effective
cleaning-up processes. Ultrasonic treatment has also been shown to have other benefits,
such as improving the performance of downstream WW treatment processes and reducing
the amount of sludge produced during treatment. Cleaning sludge is an essential pro-
cess because it is commonly utilized as fertilizer in agricultural fields, and when MPs are
detected in this substance, it can result in soil pollution.

8.2. Chemical Remediation Methods

In WW treatment, chemical methods can be combined with other treatment techniques
to completely clean up the MPs from the target environment. The extensive study of AOPs
for the chemical treatment of contaminants back-dates to their proposal in the 1980s [233].
These processes involve various methods such as light, heat, plasma, sonication, and
catalysts to effectively produce reactive oxygen species (ROS), commonly known as radicals,
during the treatment process. Recently, AOPs have gained attention as effective methods
for eliminating persistent contaminants in water by generating diverse ROS, including
sulfate radical (SO4•−), hydroxyl radical (•OH) and chloride radicals, enabling them
to readily break down a wide range of contaminants [199,234]. AOPs based on sulfate
radicals have shown great potential for catalytic degradation of MPs, particularly those
composed mainly of PE. AOPs offer advantages such as the removal of specific organic
matter, enhancement of biodegradation, and complete conversion of hazardous pollutants.
While AOPs can be associated with high costs, utilizing them as a pretreatment
for biodegradation, focusing on the surface degradation of MPs, can be a practical and
environment-friendly approach [178]. AOPs have different types of processes originating
from different sources like UV/photocatalytic reactions, ozone, and Fenton-based AOP.
Photolysis is a degradation reaction caused by light, particularly UV radiation, and it
is the basis for all photo driven AOPs. Photolysis can be used alone or within AOPs for the
degradation of plastics. When polymers are exposed to light, both physical and chemical
changes occur in their structure [235]. Many organic polymers are sensitive to visible and
UV irradiation [236]. The photolysis of plastics generally requires high irradiation energy.
Different wavelengths of UV light can cause the scission of specific bonds in different
polymers. Vacuum UV irradiation can also lead to the degradation of water molecules,
resulting in the formation of highly reactive hydroxyl radicals and hydrogen radicals [237].
PET strongly absorbs UV irradiation below 315 nm, while PS is considered relatively stable
when exposed to vacuum UV irradiation due to the energy transfer from the aliphatic
backbone to the phenyl ring, which can distribute the absorbed energy to aromatic bonds
and thermally released or by fluorescence [235].
In addition to the direct photolysis of plastics, photolysis is also applied to the degra-
dation of pollutants in environmental pollution treatment facilities. Reactive intermediates
and radicals, such as hydroxyl radicals, triplet organic matter, singlet oxygen, hydrated
electrons, superoxide radical anions, carbonate radicals, and organoperoxy radicals, are
generated through photolysis, especially under UV irradiation [238]. These reactive species
can attack and decompose various recalcitrant contaminants. The physicochemical proper-
ties of plastics can be altered, leading to their decomposition [195]. Cracks can form on the
surface of plastic samples, causing them to become rougher and eventually break down
into smaller pieces ranging from nanometers to micrometers. Over time, the size of plastics
or MPs can be further reduced to nano-sized particles.
Water 2023, 15, 3535 18 of 32

Another UV-based technology called UV/H2 O2 utilizes the reaction between UV light
and hydrogen peroxide (H2 O2 ) to generate hydroxyl radicals (•OH) [236]. This process
offers an additional approach to the treatment of pollutants, and it can be used alone or
in combination with other AOPs, utilizing various reactive species generated through
UV irradiation.
In the context of decomposing recalcitrant contaminants, UV is commonly employed
to activate photocatalysts, which generate ROS like hydroxyl radicals and superoxide
radicals during photocatalysis. ROS attack MPs, leading to polymeric chain rupture,
branching, crosslinking, and even mineralization into CO2 and H2 O. This approach has
been extensively studied for the removal of MPs in the environment [178,235,236]. It is a
mature green technology that harnesses infinite and free solar energy, making it a promising
eco-friendly and cost-effective treatment technique. Visible light-induced photocatalysis, a
more environment-friendly technology utilizing solar light, has also been investigated. TiO2
and zinc oxide (ZnO) have been widely used to develop visible light-active photocatalysts
for degradation processes.
Fenton-based processes are widely utilized techniques due to their economic advan-
tages, as they can be conducted at room temperature and atmospheric pressure. These
processes involve electron transfer between peroxides, such as hydrogen peroxide (H2 O2 ),
potassium monopersulfate (PMS), or potassium persulfate (PDS) and ferrous ions (Fe2+ ),
resulting in the production of highly reactive hydroxyl radicals (•OH) which have demon-
strated remarkable capabilities in decomposing persistent organic pollutants in water [239].
In the Fenton-like reaction, Fe2+ is replaced by ferric ions (Fe3+ ). In the photo-Fenton
reaction, UV irradiation is applied to enhance the reduction of dissolved Fe3+ to Fe2+ in the
Fenton system. The electro-Fenton reaction involves the electrochemical generation of one
or both Fenton reagents [240].
Ozonation is a widely used oxidation process that employs ozone (O3 ) as the primary
reagent. Ozone is highly reactive, with a strong oxidation potential, making it capable of di-
rectly oxidizing organic pollutants. This reaction can be further enhanced by UV irradiation,
which generates additional oxidants such as H2 O2 [235,241,242]. The combination of ozone
and H2 O2 , known as the peroxone process, leads to the formation of hydroxyl radicals.
Adding a catalyst, such as iron, further improves the production rate of hydroxyl radicals,
resulting in more efficient polymer ozonation [242,243]. Various ozonation processes, such
as conventional ozonation, UV/O3 , O3 /H2 O2 , and catalytic ozonation, have been devel-
oped to accelerate the decomposition of ozone into hydroxyl radicals [244]. Furthermore,
ozonation processes can be modified and optimized to enhance the production of hydroxyl
radicals and improve the overall efficiency of the treatment.

8.3. Bioremediation
Bioremediation is gaining attention for its advantages such as eco-friendliness, low
cost, and low energy input. Basic categories for bioremediation are bacterial, fungal, and
enzymatic degradations [179]. Chemical remediation techniques can also be combined
with bioremediation because corrosion on the surface of MPs attracts microorganisms to be
in these areas [245].
The usage of microorganisms to degrade MPs can be dependent on some parameters
such as pH, temperature, and oxidative conditions [246]. By utilizing plastic fragments
as the sole carbon source for energy and growth, recent technologies can be employed to
predict the complete degradation and elimination of MPs [247]. The microbial degradation
of plastic follows a series of steps. Firstly, biodeterioration occurs, which involves biological
agents changing the physical and chemical properties of the polymer. This is followed by
bio-fragmentation, where complex polymers are cleaved into simpler forms through the
action of enzymes or acids. Microorganisms then incorporate these fragmented molecules
through assimilation. Finally, the oxidized metabolites produced during degradation, such
as CO2 , CH4 , and H2 O, undergo mineralization [246,247].
Water 2023, 15, 3535 19 of 32

As mentioned earlier, UV radiation and photo-oxidation have been found to increase

microbial degradation [248]. However, higher molecular weight plastic polymers pose a
challenge due to their large fragments, which are difficult for microorganisms to take up.
To overcome this, microorganisms employ two mechanisms: intracellular and extracellular
degradation [249]. In intracellular degradation, microbes accumulate on the surface of MPs
and hydrolyze the plastic into shorter chains whereas in extracellular degradation, bacteria
secrete enzymes called hydrolases that break down complex polymers into simpler units,
which can then be metabolized following which the mineralization process emerges.
Fungal degradation also plays a crucial role in the biodegradation of plastics. Also,
fungi enzymatically convert the metabolic intermediate into metabolic byproducts [208,209].
Furthermore, there are some criteria to degrade MPs with fungal degradation which are
surface area, molecular weight, hydrophilicity or hydrophobicity, crystallinity, functional
groups, and chemical structure [210].
There are recent few attempts to use microalgae for the biodegradation of plastic.
Exopolysaccharides (EPS) are synthesized by microalgae and enable them to colonize walls,
rocks, and other substrates resulting in biodeterioration of the substrate. Surface charge,
hydrophobicity, and electrostatic forces are the unique properties of EPS that bind to the
substrate [250]. For example, the consortium of Chlorella sp. and Cyanobacteria sp. were
found to deteriorate low-density polyethylene (LDPE sample), and this was confirmed by
many chemical analyses like FTIR. The consortium was found to secrete various EPS. These
EPS act as colonizing and degradative agents and convert polymers into monomers [251].
The factors that can affect the degradation process by microalgae include the type of
polymer and the pre-treatment process such as UV, and heat. For instance, PP has raised
severe environmental issues concerning its non-degradability. Sumat et al. investigated the
ability of Aspergillus terreus (ATCC 20542) and Engyodontium album (BRIP 61534a) to break
down PP and focused on the pre-treatment process. Polypropylene granule (GPP), film
(FPP) and metallized film (MFPP) were pre-treated by either UV, heat, or Fenton’s reagent.
A. terreus incubated with UV-treated MFPP formed a high biomass yield. Additionally,
surface morphological changes revealed consistent biodeterioration indication. Thus, A.
terreus and E. album can grow on, change, and utilize PP as a source of carbon with pre-
treatment aid, enhancing the biological pathways for plastic waste treatment [252].
Hydrolytic enzymes have been shown to be the major players in the biological degrada-
tion of polymers. Various enzymes, such as cutinases, lipases, esterases, carboxylesterases,
and oxygenases, have been reported to modify and degrade a wide range of plastic
fragments [253].

8.4. Nanoremediation
Nanomaterials can be used as absorbents, catalysts, and flocculants in the remediation
process [254–256]. For example, activated carbon, traditionally used as a solid adsorbent, is
effective due to its high porosity and large surface area [257]. There are different types of
nano-flocculants, and their efficiencies vary based on the nature of polymers. For example,
synthetic polymers, while highly efficient, are non-biodegradable and pose environmental
burdens. Biopolymers, conversely, are water-soluble and biodegradable but less effective
at low doses, however, the addition of nanomaterials to biopolymers can significantly
enhance their performance [253].
Furthermore, magnetic extraction utilizing hydrophobic iron nanoparticles has shown
high efficiency in recovering MPs from various environments [251]. Similar to photo-
catalysis, the degradation of plastics can be induced by carbocatalysis, where a carbon
source is used for activating oxidation reactions. The combination of nanotechnology and
bioremediation offers new possibilities for more efficient and cost-effective remediation
methods [258,258].
Water 2023, 15, 3535 20 of 32

9. Plastic Pollution in the Context of SDGs

Marine pollution is one of the main significant menaces to marine ecosystems [259],
and a top priority environmental issue due to this crisis inherently transboundary. Thus,
the United Nations is endeavouring to address it through the 2030 Agenda and its SDGs
whereby SDG Goals 13, 14 and 15 aim to preserve and sustain marine and terrestrial
ecosystems, natural habitats, biodiversity [260]. This can be achieved by global combined
efforts, harmonized actions, and concrete coordination, and taking effective measures to
tackle issues adequately and to mitigate environmental degradation. Continuous negative
impacts will affect the health and resilience of land and marine ecosystems, which will lead
to a loss or decline in biodiversity and pose severe threats to the sustainability of those
ecosystems [259].
The continuous mass production of plastics and mismanagement of solid waste can
cause serious environmental impacts [261]; around 80% of MPs pollution sources are
from various land-based activities [33,262], and around 11% of the global plastic waste
leaks into oceans and affects marine ecosystems [263]. Further, plastic consumption of
non-biodegradable packaging materials during the COVID-19 pandemic has witnessed
a significant increase of 40% [263]. Plastic pollution is related directly or indirectly to
at least 12 out of 17 SDGs [264]. Thereby, SDG 14 (target 14.1) and SDG 15 (target 15.5)
are intended for the conservation and sustainable usage of land biodiversity, oceans, and
other water bodies; therefore, there is a need for urgent strong action to control waste
generation sources. In this context, SDG 12 (target 12.5) aims to reduce waste generation
via prevention, reuse, reduction, and recycling by 2030, and the role of industries is to
adopt sustainable practices (target 12.6) and environmentally sound handling of chemicals
throughout whole processes and avoid the significant damaging impacts (target 12.4).
This will reflect on SDG 6 which addresses water quality (target 6.3), and intend to lessen
pollution, increase recycling and safe reuse largely in an effort to improve water quality. As
a result, SDG 3 (target 3.9) will witness a positive impact as it aims to significantly decrease
the number of deaths and illnesses caused by hazardous chemical contamination from air,
water, and soil pollution.
Concerning SDG 13, plastic pollution fosters greenhouse gas footprints and interferes
with carbon fixation in marine ecosystems [265], where carbon sinks are essential in reg-
ulating global climate change [266]. Plastic emissions and greenhouse gases are closely
linked to each other throughout the entire life cycle of plastics, contributing to the climate
crisis [267]. Therefore, the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Con-
vention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) calls for sound management of the entire plastic
lifecycle to attain net-carbon neutrality by 2050 [268]. Thus, SDG 9 (Target 9.4) which aims
to promote resource efficiency and eco-friendly technologies, is best linked with SDGs 8,
12 and 13, which involve sustainable economic growth and industrial innovations. Hence,
investing in sustainable materials and renewable resource technology efforts are crucial for
achieving net-zero emissions [269].
Figure 7 summarizes the interlinkages among the SDGs, which are related directly
and indirectly to SDG 14. Where SDGs 9 (promote innovative eco-friendly products),
12 (responsible waste management options), 13 (control greenhouse gas emissions), and
15 (manage land-based activities) are directly related to SDG 14, and to attain them at the
global level, there is a need to enhance global partnerships through SDG 17. As a result,
SDGs 2 (sustain food production), 3 (protect human health), 6 (conserve water quality),
and 8 (promote sustainable economic growth) will be attained indirectly. Thus, this will
lead to a resilient sustainable marine environment (SDG 14).
According to UNEP, the reviewing result of 18 international and 36 regional instru-
ments is that “current governance strategies and approaches provide a piecemeal approach
that does not adequately address marine plastic litter and MPs” [270]. This evidence raises
the need for urgent global action to address the plastic pollution crisis; therefore, currently
the UNEP with global countries are working on formulating a new legally binding global
instrument—a convention—that aims to end plastic pollution across its full cycle in all
 investing in sustainable materials and renewable resource technology efforts are crucial
for achieving net-zero emissions [269].
Figure 7 summarizes the interlinkages among the SDGs, which are related directly
and indirectly to SDG 14. Where SDGs 9 (promote innovative eco-friendly products), 12
Water 2023, 15, 3535 (responsible waste management options), 13 (control greenhouse gas emissions), and 1521 of 32
(manage land-based activities) are directly related to SDG 14, and to attain them at the
global level, there is a need to enhance global partnerships through SDG 17. As a result,
SDGsenvironments;
2 (sustain food production),
and 3 (protect
it focuses directly human3,health),
on SDGs 6, 9, 12, 613,
(conserve water
14, and 15 quality),
through the moni-
and 8toring
(promote
and reporting framework. This new global instrument is a tailor-madethis
sustainable economic growth) will be attained indirectly. Thus, will
combination
lead to a resilient sustainable marine environment (SDG 14).
of economic and environmental aspects to tackle plastic pollution [271].

FigureFigure
7. Sustainable Development
7. Sustainable Goal (SDG
Development 14) and
Goal (SDG 14)itsand
association with other
its association SDGs.SDGs.
with other

The key
According to benefit
UNEP,ofthe implementing a global
reviewing result instrument
of 18 is its and
international ability
36 to enhance
regional a common
instru-
scientific base, which will lead to building a globally responsible
ments is that “current governance strategies and approaches provide a piecemeal ap- and unified knowledge
proachbase towards
that does nota more efficient
adequately direction
address for policymaking
marine plastic litter and processes and future
MPs” [270]. research
This evi-
trends. Therefore, the starting point of tackling the plastic pollution issue
dence raises the need for urgent global action to address the plastic pollution crisis; there- is at the national
fore, level by enacting
currently the UNEP robust
withregulations and laws
global countries that limiton
are working or formulating
restrict single-use
a newplastic
legallyprod-
uctsglobal
binding and monitoring
instrument—a plastic production and
convention—that waste,
aims raising
to end awareness
plastic pollutionand education,
across its full and
promoting investments in innovative technologies. In summary, there
cycle in all environments; and it focuses directly on SDGs 3, 6, 9, 12, 13, 14, and 15 through is no doubt that
plastic pollution has significant negative impacts on terrestrial
the monitoring and reporting framework. This new global instrument is a tailor-made and aquatic ecosystems,
and the of
combination SDGs framework
economic presents a window
and environmental aspectsoftoopportunity
tackle plastictopollution
address this
[271].issue from
different aspects.

10. Future Prospectives and Recommendations

The issue of plastic pollution presents immense environmental challenges, and it is
considered one of the main anthropogenic significant threats to the entire planet ecosystems,
where the drastic increase in MPs and NPs in land and aquatic ecosystems will harm all
environments. Thus, it is important to develop techniques and methods that analyze,
identify, and monitor MPs and NPs sources across all the environmental components
including soil, water, food, and other consumption products. It is important to acknowledge
that there is a lack of comprehensive information and data availability on every aspect
of the plastic lifecycle. There have been a few studies conducted on the various types of
plastics and plastic products. Therefore, there is a need for international scientific projects
to take place all of which require concerted, planned, and scalable efforts to transform
plastic waste into a valuable resource. Also, further research should prioritize investigating
Water 2023, 15, 3535 22 of 32

the transportation pathways of MPs and NPs in the environment to promote and ensure
the health of both humans and the environment.
To achieve environmental sustainability, it is essential to rely on sound scientific
research to guide policies and enhance the understanding of all parties involved. To fulfil
the 2030 Agenda and attain its associated SDGs, collaborative and collective efforts are
required across all levels, global, regional, and local whereby partnerships among all
stakeholders (i.e., government, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the private sector,
academia, and civil society) must drive the process. Companies should use the SDGs
as a valuable framework to change their current practices into those that are sustainable
such as promote technological innovations, adopt cleaner production technologies, utilize
eco-friendly components in their products and packaging, invest in the recovery of material,
and reduce the use of harmful chemicals that harm human health and the environment.
Essentially, there is a crucial need for robust laws, regulations, and policies to reduce
plastic usage at all levels national, regional, and international. Beyond this, there is a
requirement, to increase public awareness and education, control plastic waste, encourage
waste recycling, develop a synthesis of bioplastics products, ban products that contain
MPs and NPs, ban single-use plastic packaging, promote reusable products, and enhance
global cooperation. Thus, the urgent need arises for a legally binding international in-
strument to effectively manage and alleviate pollution caused by MPs and NPs in marine
ecosystems and other environments. Plastic pollution has severe impacts, such as climate
change, loss biodiversity, marine pollution, the loss of marine species and the degrada-
tion of aquatic ecosystems and coastal environment, economic losses, and human and
environmental health.
In addition, it is important for the community to take on a societal responsibility
by choosing to buy products that do not contain primary MPs, such as personal care
items. This requires a shift in behaviours and habits and adopting new ones, which can be
achieved through education and awareness on how to identify MPs and NPs-free products
and safer alternatives. Moreover, there should be a focus on promoting principles of a
circular economy by increasing public awareness (via open forums and trusted social media)
about health hazards associated with plastic waste and the importance of effective waste
management (avoid landfilling) to enhance natural resource efficiency, which includes
encouraging reducing, reusing, and recycling in both the industrial sector (especially
plastics manufacturers) and domestic settings.
At the global level, there is a necessity for coherence and synergy among the current
agreements, including the UNFCCC, the Stockholm Convention on POPs, the Action Plan
of International Maritime Organization (IMO) that address “Marine Plastic Litter from
Ships”, Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste
and their Disposal, and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships (MARPOL).
In conclusion, there should be a priority given to research and development concerning
the impacts of MPs and NPs on the environmental ecosystems. It is important to develop
policies based on science and driven by global coordination, collaboration, and governance
through developing tools and methodologies that measure the impacts and menace of
plastic pollution.

Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at:

https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/w15203535/s1.
Author Contributions: A.H.R.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing—original, Project admin-
istration, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing. G.Y.: Conceptualization, Method-
ology, Supervision, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing. L.H.: Conceptualization,
Methodology, Supervision, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing, Project adminis-
tration. S.R.: Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing. R.A.: Writing—original draft,
Writing—review and editing. Z.K.: Writing—original draft. F.A. (Fatema Ali): Writing—original draft.
F.A. (Fatima Abdulrasool): Writing—original draft. A.H.K.: Writing—original draft, Writing—review
and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Water 2023, 15, 3535 23 of 32

Funding: This research received external funding from TechnoChem company to enable open
access publication.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Garside, M. Global Plastic Production Statistics. Retrieved from Statista. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/
282732/global (accessed on 1 August 2020).
2. Plastics Europe. Plastics—The Facts 2022. Available online: https://plasticseurope.org/knowledge-hub/plastics-the-facts-2022/
(accessed on 27 September 2022).
3. Lebreton, L.; Andrady, A. Future scenarios of global plastic waste generation and disposal. Palgrave Commun. 2019, 5, 6. [CrossRef]
4. Wagner, S.; Reemtsma, T. Things we know and don’t know about nanoplastic in the environment. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2019, 14,
300–301. [CrossRef]
5. Shrivastava, A. Polymerization. In Introduction to Plastics Engineering; William Andrew Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2018;
pp. 17–48.
6. Liu, T.; Guo, X.; Liu, W.; Hao, C.; Wang, L.; Hiscox, W.C.; Liu, C.; Jin, C.; Xin, J.; Zhang, J. Selective cleavage of ester linkages of
anhydride-cured epoxy using a benign method and reuse of the decomposed polymer in new epoxy preparation. Green Chem.
2017, 19, 4364–4372. [CrossRef]
7. Ambrogi, V.; Carfagna, C.; Cerruti, P.; Marturano, V. Additives in Polymers. In Modification of Polymer Properties; William Andrew
Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 87–108. [CrossRef]
8. Song, Y.K.; Hong, S.H.; Jang, M.; Han, G.M.; Jung, S.W.; Shim, W.J. Combined effects of UV exposure duration and mechanical
abrasion on microplastic fragmentation by polymer type. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 4368–4376. [CrossRef]
9. da Costa, J.P. Micro-and nanoplastics in the environment: Research and policymaking. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 2018, 1,
12–16. [CrossRef]
10. Gigault, J.; Ter Halle, A.; Baudrimont, M.; Pascal, P.Y.; Gauffre, F.; Phi, T.L.; El Hadri, H.; Grassl, B.; Reynaud, S. Current opinion:
What is a nanoplastic? Environ. Pollut. 2018, 235, 1030–1034. [CrossRef]
11. European Food Safety Authority; EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM). Presence of microplastics and
nano plastics in food, with particular focus on seafood. EFSA J. 2016, 14, e04501. [CrossRef]
12. Tang, Y.; Hady, T.J.; Yoon, J. Receptor–based detection of microplastics and nanoplastics: Current and future. Biosens. Bioelectron.
2023, 234, 115361. [CrossRef]
13. Mariano, S.; Tacconi, S.; Fidaleo, M.; Rossi, M.; Dini, L. Micro and Nanoplastics Identification: Classic Methods and Innovative
Detection Techniques. Front. Toxicol. 2021, 3, 636640. [CrossRef]
14. Rochman, C.M.; Browne, M.A.; Halpern, B.S.; Hentschel, B.T.; Hoh, E.; Karapanagioti, H.K.; Rios-Mendoza, L.M.; Takada, H.; Teh,
S.; Thompson, R.C. Classify plastic waste as hazardous. Nature 2013, 494, 169–171. [CrossRef]
15. Rashed, A.H. Bahrain’s Environmental Legal Tools for Giving Effect to Sustainable Development Goals: An Assessment.
Environ. Policy Law 2022, 52, 39–54. [CrossRef]
16. Hernandez, L.M.; Yousefi, N.; Tufenkji, N. Are there nanoplastics in your personal care products? Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2017,
4, 280–285. [CrossRef]
17. Ter Halle, A.; Jeanneau, L.; Martignac, M.; Jardé, E.; Pedrono, B.; Brach, L.; Gigault, J. Nanoplastic in the North Atlantic Subtropical
Gyre. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 13689–13697. [CrossRef]
18. Gigault, J.; Pedrono, B.; Maxit, B.; Ter Halle, A. Marine plastic litter: The unanalyzed nano-fraction. Environ. Sci. Nano 2016, 3,
346–350. [CrossRef]
19. Cole, M.; Lindeque, P.; Halsband, C.; Galloway, T.S. Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: A review.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62, 2588–2597. [CrossRef]
20. Zitko, V.; Hanlon, M.J. Another source of pollution by plastics: Skin cleaners with plastic scrubbers. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1991, 22,
41–42. [CrossRef]
21. Andrady, A.L. Microplastics in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62, 1596–1605. [CrossRef]
22. Zettler, E.R.; Mincer, T.J.; Amaral-Zettler, L.A. Life in the “plastisphere”: Microbial communities on plastic marine debris.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 7137–7146. [CrossRef]
23. Crawford, C.B.; Quinn, B. Plastic Production, Waste, and Legislation. In Microplastic Pollutants; Elsevier: Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 39–56.
24. Mendoza, L.M.; Vargas, D.L.; Balcer, M. Microplastics occurrence and fate in the environment. Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem.
2021, 32, 100523. [CrossRef]
25. Kumar, V.; Singh, E.; Singh, S.; Pandey, A.; Bhargava, P.C. Micro-and nano-plastics (MNPs) as emerging pollutant in ground
water: Environmental impact, potential risks, limitations and way forward towards sustainable management. Chem. Eng. J. 2023,
459, 141568. [CrossRef]
26. Golwala, H.; Zhang, X.; Iskander, S.M.; Smith, A.L. Solid waste: An overlooked source of microplastics to the environment.
Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 769, 144581. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Water 2023, 15, 3535 24 of 32

27. Horton, A.A.; Dixon, S.J. Microplastics: An introduction to environmental transport processes. WIREs Water 2018, 5, e1268.
[CrossRef]
28. 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, 2. [CrossRef]
29. Baensch-Baltruschat, B.; Kocher, B.; Kochleus, C.; Stock, F.; Reifferscheid, G. Tyre and road wear particles-a calculation of
generation, transport and release to water and soil with special regard to German roads. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 752, 141939.
[CrossRef]
30. Lwanga, E.H.; Beriot, N.; Corradini, F.; Silva, V.; Yang, X.; Baartman, J.; Rezaei, M.; van Schaik, L.; Riksen, M.; Geissen, V. Review
of microplastic sources, transport pathways and correlations with other soil stressors: A journey from agricultural sites into the
environment. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 2022, 9, 20. [CrossRef]
31. Michel, E.; Néel, M.C.; Capowiez, Y.; Sammartino, S.; Lafolie, F.; Renault, P.; Pelosi, C. Making Waves: Modeling bioturbation in
soils–are we burrowing in the right direction? Water Res. 2022, 216, 118342. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Liu, Q.; Chen, Z.; Chen, Y.; Yang, F.; Yao, W.; Xie, Y. Microplastics and nanoplastics: Emerging contaminants in food. J. Agric. Food
Chem. 2021, 69, 10450–10468. [CrossRef]
33. Rillig, M.C. Microplastic in terrestrial ecosystems and the soil? Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 6453–6454. [CrossRef]
34. Zylstra, E.R. Accumulation of wind-dispersed trash in desert environments. J. Arid. Environ. 2013, 89, 13–15. [CrossRef]
35. Barboza, L.G.; Cózar, A.; Gimenez, B.C.; Barros, T.L.; Kershaw, P.J.; Guilhermino, L. Macroplastics Pollution in the Marine
Environment. In World Seas: An Environmental Evaluation; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 305–328.
36. Horton, A.A.; Walton, A.; Spurgeon, D.J.; Lahive, E.; Svendsen, C. Microplastics in freshwater and terrestrial environments:
Evaluating the current understanding to identify the knowledge gaps and future research priorities. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 586,
127–141. [CrossRef]
37. Dris, R.; Gasperi, J.; Mirande, C.; Mandin, C.; Guerrouache, M.; Langlois, V.; Tassin, B. A first overview of textile fibers, including
microplastics, in indoor and outdoor environments. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 221, 453–458. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Bergmann, M.; Wirzberger, V.; Krumpen, T.; Lorenz, C.; Primpke, S.; Tekman, M.B.; Gerdts, G. High quantities of microplastic
in Arctic deep-sea sediments from the HAUSGARTEN observatory. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 11000–11010. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
39. Prata, J.C. Airborne microplastics: Consequences to human health? Environ. Pollut. 2018, 234, 115–126. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Dris, R.; Gasperi, J.; Saad, M.; Mirande, C.; Tassin, B. Synthetic fibers in atmospheric fallout: A source of microplastics in the
environment? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 104, 290–293. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41. Alzona, J.B.; Cohen, B.L.; Rudolph, H.; Jow, H.N.; Frohliger, J.O. Indoor-outdoor relationships for airborne particulate matter of
outdoor origin. Atmos. Environ. (1967) 1979, 13, 55–60. [CrossRef]
42. Mintenig, S.M.; Löder, M.G.; Primpke, S.; Gerdts, G. Low numbers of microplastics detected in drinking water from ground water
sources. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 648, 631–635. [CrossRef]
43. Oßmann, B.E.; Sarau, G.; Holtmannspötter, H.; Pischetsrieder, M.; Christiansen, S.H.; Dicke, W. Small-sized microplastics and
pigmented particles in bottled mineral water. Water Res. 2018, 141, 307–316. [CrossRef]
44. Peixoto, D.; Pinheiro, C.; Amorim, J.; Oliva-Teles, L.; Guilhermino, L.; Vieira, M.N. Microplastic pollution in commercial salt for
human consumption: A review. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2019, 219, 161–168. [CrossRef]
45. Kosuth, M.; Mason, S.A.; Wattenberg, E.V. Anthropogenic contamination of tap water, beer, and sea salt. PLoS ONE 2018, 13,
e0194970. [CrossRef]
46. Mason, S.A.; Welch, V.G.; Neratko, J. Synthetic polymer contamination in bottled water. Front. Chem. 2018, 6, 407. [CrossRef]
47. Eerkes-Medrano, D.; Leslie, H.A.; Quinn, B. Microplastics in drinking water: A review and assessment. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci.
Health 2019, 7, 69–75. [CrossRef]
48. Li, W.; Wang, S.; Wufuer, R.; Duo, J.; Pan, X. Distinct soil microplastic distributions under various farmland-use types around
Urumqi, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 857, 159573. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
49. Selvam, S.; Jesuraja, K.; Venkatramanan, S.; Roy, P.D.; Kumari, V.J. Hazardous microplastic characteristics and its role as a vector
of heavy metal in groundwater and surface water of coastal south India. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 402, 123786. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
50. Townsend, K.R.; Lu, H.C.; Sharley, D.J.; Pettigrove, V. Associations between microplastic pollution and land use in urban wetland
sediments. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 22551–22561. [CrossRef]
51. Li, J.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, K.; Yang, R.; Li, R.; Li, Y. Characterization, source, and retention of microplastic in sandy beaches and
mangrove wetlands of the Qinzhou Bay, China. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 136, 401–406. [CrossRef]
52. Duan, Z.; Zhao, S.; Zhao, L.; Duan, X.; Xie, S.; Zhang, H.; Liu, Y.; Peng, Y.; Liu, C.; Wang, L. Microplastics in Yellow River Delta
wetland: Occurrence, characteristics, human influences, and marker. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 258, 113232. [CrossRef]
53. Al-Salem, S.M.; Uddin, S.; Lyons, B. Evidence of microplastics (MP) in gut content of major consumed marine fish species in the
State of Kuwait (of the Arabian/Persian Gulf). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 154, 111052. [CrossRef]
54. Saeed, T.; Al-Jandal, N.; Al-Mutairi, A.; Taqi, H. Microplastics in Kuwait marine environment: Results of first survey. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 2020, 152, 110880. [CrossRef]
55. Habib, R.Z.; Thiemann, T. Microplastic in Commercial Fish in the Mediterranean Sea, the Red Sea and the Arabian/Persian Gulf.
Part 3. The Arabian/Persian Gulf. J. Water Resour. Prot. 2022, 14, 474–500. [CrossRef]
Water 2023, 15, 3535 25 of 32

56. Uddin, S.; Fowler, S.W.; Behbehani, M. An assessment of microplastic inputs into the aquatic environment from wastewater
streams. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 160, 111538. [CrossRef]
57. Prata, J.C.; da Costa, J.P.; Lopes, I.; Duarte, A.C.; Rocha-Santos, T. Environmental exposure to microplastics: An overview on
possible human health effects. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 702, 134455. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
58. Rahman, A.; Sarkar, A.; Yadav, O.P.; Achari, G.; Slobodnik, J. Potential human health risks due to environmental exposure to
nano-and microplastics and knowledge gaps: A scoping review. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 757, 143872. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59. Carbery, M.; O’Connor, W.; Palanisami, T. Trophic transfer of microplastics and mixed contaminants in the marine food web and
implications for human health. Environ. Int. 2018, 115, 400–409. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
60. Schneider, M.; Stracke, F.; Hansen, S.; Schaefer, U.F. Nanoparticles and their interactions with the dermal barrier.
Dermato-endocrinology 2009, 1, 197–206. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
61. Brennecke, D.; Duarte, B.; Paiva, F.; Caçador, I.; Canning-Clode, J. Microplastics as vector for heavy metal contamination from the
marine environment. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2016, 178, 189–195. [CrossRef]
62. Camacho, M.; Herrera, A.; Gómez, M.; Acosta-Dacal, A.; Martínez, I.; Henríquez-Hernández, L.A.; Luzardo, O.P. Organic
pollutants in marine plastic debris from Canary Islands beaches. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 662, 22–31. [CrossRef]
63. Li, J.; Zhang, K.; Zhang, H. Adsorption of antibiotics on microplastics. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 237, 460–467. [CrossRef]
64. Rochman, C.M.; Kurobe, T.; Flores, I.; Teh, S.J. Early warning signs of endocrine disruption in adult fish from the ingestion of
polyethylene with and without sorbed chemical pollutants from the marine environment. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 493, 656–661.
[CrossRef]
65. Viršek, M.K.; Lovšin, M.N.; Koren, Š.; Kržan, A.; Peterlin, M. Microplastics as a vector for the transport of the bacterial fish
pathogen species Aeromonas salmonicida. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 125, 301–309. [CrossRef]
66. 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. [CrossRef]
67. Ge, H.; Yan, Y.; Wu, D.; Huang, Y.; Tian, F. Potential role of LINC00996 in colorectal cancer: A study based on data mining and
bioinformatics. OncoTargets Ther. 2018, 11, 4845–4855. [CrossRef]
68. Alberts, B.; Johnson, A.; Lewis, J.; Raff, M.; Roberts, K.; Walter, P. Cell Junctions. In Molecular Biology of the Cell, 4th ed.; Garland
Science: New York, NY, USA, 2002.
69. Bergmann, M.; Gutow, L.; Klages, M. Marine Anthropogenic Litter; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2015.
70. Tomazic-Jezic, V.J.; Merritt, K.; Umbreit, T.H. Significance of the type and the size of biomaterial particles on phagocytosis and
tissue distribution. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 2001, 55, 523–529. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
71. Carr, K.E.; Smyth, S.H.; McCullough, M.T.; Morris, J.F.; Moyes, S.M. Morphological aspects of interactions between microparticles
and mammalian cells: Intestinal uptake and onward movement. Prog. Histochem. Cytochem. 2012, 46, 185–252. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
72. Walczak, A.P.; Kramer, E.; Hendriksen, P.J.; Tromp, P.; Helsper, J.P.; van der Zande, M.; Rietjens, I.M.; Bouwmeester, H.
Translocation of differently sized and charged polystyrene nanoparticles in in vitro intestinal cell models of increasing complexity.
Nanotoxicology 2015, 9, 453–461. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
73. Jani, P.; Halbert, G.W.; Langridge, J.; Florence, A.T. Nanoparticle uptake by the rat gastrointestinal mucosa: Quantitation and
particle size dependency. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 1990, 42, 821–826. [CrossRef]
74. des Rieux, A.; Fievez, V.; Théate, I.; Mast, J.; Préat, V.; Schneider, Y.J. An improved in vitro model of human intestinal follicle-
associated epithelium to study nanoparticle transport by M cells. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 2007, 30, 380–391. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
75. Kulkarni, S.A.; Feng, S.S. Effects of particle size and surface modification on cellular uptake and biodistribution of polymeric
nanoparticles for drug delivery. Pharm. Res. 2013, 30, 2512–2522. [CrossRef]
76. Lundqvist, M.; Stigler, J.; Elia, G.; Lynch, I.; Cedervall, T.; Dawson, K.A. Nanoparticle size and surface properties determine the
protein corona with possible implications for biological impacts. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 14265–14270. [CrossRef]
77. Tenzer, S.; Docter, D.; Kuharev, J.; Musyanovych, A.; Fetz, V.; Hecht, R.; Schlenk, F.; Fischer, D.; Kiouptsi, K.; Reinhardt, C.; et al.
Rapid Formation of Plasma Protein Corona Critically Affects Nanoparticle Pathophysiology. In Nano-Enabled Medical Applications;
Jenny Stanford Publishing: Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 2020; pp. 251–278. [CrossRef]
78. Philippe, A.; Schaumann, G.E. Interactions of dissolved organic matter with natural and engineered inorganic colloids: A review.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 8946–8962. [CrossRef]
79. Stapleton, P.A. Toxicological considerations of nano-sized plastics. AIMS Environ. Sci. 2019, 6, 367–378. [CrossRef]
80. Vethaak, A.D.; Leslie, H.A. Plastic Debris Is a Human Health Issue. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 6825–6826. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
81. Ohlwein, S.; Kappeler, R.; Kutlar Joss, M.; Künzli, N.; Hoffmann, B. Health effects of ultrafine particles: A systematic literature
review update of epidemiological evidence. Int. J. Public Health 2019, 64, 547–559. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
82. Porter, D.W.; Hubbs, A.F.; Mercer, R.R.; Wu, N.; Wolfarth, M.G.; Sriram, K.; Leonard, S.; Battelli, L.; Schwegler-Berry, D.; Friend, S.;
et al. Mouse pulmonary dose-and time course-responses induced by exposure to multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Toxicology 2010,
269, 136–147. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
83. Rist, S.; Almroth, B.C.; Hartmann, N.B.; Karlsson, T.M. A critical perspective on early communications concerning human health
aspects of microplastics. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 626, 720–726. [CrossRef]
Water 2023, 15, 3535 26 of 32

84. Varela, J.A.; Bexiga, M.G.; Åberg, C.; Simpson, J.C.; Dawson, K.A. Quantifying size-dependent interactions between fluorescently
labeled polystyrene nanoparticles and mammalian cells. J. Nanobiotechnol. 2012, 10, 39. [CrossRef]
85. Deville, S.; Penjweini, R.; Smisdom, N.; Notelaers, K.; Nelissen, I.; Hooyberghs, J.; Ameloot, M. Intracellular dynamics and fate of
polystyrene nanoparticles in A549 Lung epithelial cells monitored by image (cross-) correlation spectroscopy and single particle
tracking. Biochim. Biophys. Acta (BBA)-Mol. Cell Res. 2015, 1853, 2411–2419. [CrossRef]
86. Yacobi, N.R.; DeMaio, L.; Xie, J.; Hamm-Alvarez, S.F.; Borok, Z.; Kim, K.J.; Crandall, E.D. Polystyrene nanoparticle trafficking
across alveolar epithelium. Nanomed. Nanotechnol. Biol. Med. 2008, 4, 139–145. [CrossRef]
87. Salvati, A.; Åberg, C.; dos Santos, T.; Varela, J.; Pinto, P.; Lynch, I.; Dawson, K.A. Experimental and theoretical comparison of
intracellular import of polymeric nanoparticles and small molecules: Toward models of uptake kinetics. Nanomed. Nanotechnol.
Biol. Med. 2011, 7, 818–826. [CrossRef]
88. Som, C.; Wick, P.; Krug, H.; Nowack, B. Environmental and health effects of nanomaterials in nanotextiles and façade coatings.
Environ. Int. 2011, 37, 1131–1142. [CrossRef]
89. Bouwstra, J.; Pilgram, G.; Gooris, G.; Koerten, H.; Ponec, M. New aspects of the skin barrier organization. Ski. Pharmacol. Physiol.
2001, 14 (Suppl. 1), 52–62. [CrossRef]
90. Alvarez-Román, R.; Naik, A.; Kalia, Y.N.; Guy, R.H.; Fessi, H. Skin penetration and distribution of polymeric nanoparticles.
J. Control Release 2004, 99, 53–62. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
91. Campbell, C.S.; Contreras-Rojas, L.R.; Delgado-Charro, M.B.; Guy, R.H. Objective assessment of nanoparticle disposition in
mammalian skin after topical exposure. J. Control Release 2012, 162, 201–207. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
92. Vogt, A.; Combadiere, B.; Hadam, S.; Stieler, K.M.; Lademann, J.; Schaefer, H.; Autran, B.; Sterry, W.; Blume-Peytavi, U. 40 nm,
but not 750 or 1,500 nm, nanoparticles enter epidermal CD1a+ cells after transcutaneous application on human skin. J. Investig.
Dermatol. 2006, 126, 1316–1322. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
93. Biniek, K.; Levi, K.; Dauskardt, R.H. Solar UV radiation reduces the barrier function of human skin. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
2012, 109, 17111–17116. [CrossRef]
94. Mortensen, L.J.; Oberdörster, G.; Pentland, A.P.; DeLouise, L.A. In vivo skin penetration of quantum dot nanoparticles in the
murine model: The effect of UVR. Nano Lett. 2008, 8, 2779–2787. [CrossRef]
95. Lane, M.E. Skin penetration enhancers. Int. J. Pharm. 2013, 447, 12–21. [CrossRef]
96. Jatana, S.; Callahan, L.M.; Pentland, A.P.; DeLouise, L.A. Impact of cosmetic lotions on nanoparticle penetration through ex vivo
C57BL/6 hairless mouse and human skin: A comparison study. Cosmetics 2016, 3, 6. [CrossRef]
97. Kuo, T.R.; Wu, C.L.; Hsu, C.T.; Lo, W.; Chiang, S.J.; Lin, S.J.; Dong, C.Y.; Chen, C.C. Chemical enhancer induced changes in the
mechanisms of transdermal delivery of zinc oxide nanoparticles. Biomaterials 2009, 30, 3002–3008. [CrossRef]
98. Cheng, Y.; Yang, S.; Yin, L.; Pu, Y.; Liang, G. Recent consequences of micro-nanaoplastics (MNPLs) in subcellular/molecular
environmental pollution toxicity on human and animals. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2023, 249, 114385. [CrossRef]
99. Khan, A.; Jia, Z. Recent insights into uptake, toxicity, and molecular targets of microplastics and nanoplastics relevant to human
health impacts. iScience 2023, 26, 106061. [CrossRef]
100. Lee, H.S.; Amarakoon, D.; Wei, C.I.; Choi, K.Y.; Smolensky, D.; Lee, S.H. Adverse effect of polystyrene microplastics (PS-MPs)
on tube formation and viability of human umbilical vein endothelial cells. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2021, 154, 112356. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
101. Lu, Y.Y.; Li, H.; Ren, H.; Zhang, X.; Huang, F.; Zhang, D.; Huang, Q.; Zhang, X. Size-dependent effects of polystyrene nanoplastics
on autophagy response in human umbilical vein endothelial cells. J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 421, 126770. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
102. Visalli, G.; Facciolà, A.; Pruiti Ciarello, M.; De Marco, G.; Maisano, M.; Di Pietro, A. Acute and sub-chronic effects of microplastics
(3 and 10 µm) on the human intestinal cells HT-29. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5833. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
103. Domenech, J.; de Britto, M.; Velázquez, A.; Pastor, S.; Hernández, A.; Marcos, R.; Cortés, C. Long-term effects of polystyrene
nanoplastics in human intestinal Caco-2 cells. Biomolecules 2021, 11, 1442. [CrossRef]
104. Stock, V.; Laurisch, C.; Franke, J.; Dönmez, M.H.; Voss, L.; Böhmert, L.; Braeuning, A.; Sieg, H. Uptake and cellular effects of PE,
PP, PET and PVC microplastic particles. Toxicol. In Vitro 2021, 70, 105021. [CrossRef]
105. DeLoid, G.M.; Cao, X.; Bitounis, D.; Singh, D.; Llopis, P.M.; Buckley, B.; Demokritou, P. Toxicity, uptake, and nuclear translocation
of ingested micro-nanoplastics in an in vitro model of the small intestinal epithelium. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2021, 158, 112609.
[CrossRef]
106. Shi, C.; Han, X.; Guo, W.; Wu, Q.; Yang, X.; Wang, Y.; Tang, G.; Wang, S.; Wang, Z.; Liu, Y.; et al. Disturbed Gut-Liver axis
indicating oral exposure to polystyrene microplastic potentially increases the risk of insulin resistance. Environ. Int. 2022, 164,
107273. [CrossRef]
107. Menéndez-Pedriza, A.; Jaumot, J.; Bedia, C. Lipidomic analysis of single and combined effects of polyethylene microplastics and
polychlorinated biphenyls on human hepatoma cells. J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 421, 126777. [CrossRef]
108. Zheng, T.; Yuan, D.; Liu, C. Molecular toxicity of nanoplastics involving in oxidative stress and desoxyribonucleic acid damage.
J. Mol. Recognit. 2019, 32, e2804. [CrossRef]
109. Xu, M.; Halimu, G.; Zhang, Q.; Song, Y.; Fu, X.; Li, Y.; Li, Y.; Zhang, H. Internalization and toxicity: A preliminary study of effects
of nanoplastic particles on human lung epithelial cell. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 694, 133794. [CrossRef]
110. Goodman, K.E.; Hare, J.T.; Khamis, Z.I.; Hua, T.; Sang, Q.X. Exposure of human lung cells to polystyrene microplastics significantly
retards cell proliferation and triggers morphological changes. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2021, 34, 1069–1081. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Water 2023, 15, 3535 27 of 32

111. Zhang, T.; Yang, S.; Ge, Y.; Wan, X.; Zhu, Y.; Li, J.; Yin, L.; Pu, Y.; Liang, G. Polystyrene nanoplastics induce lung injury via
activating oxidative stress: Molecular insights from bioinformatics analysis. Nanomaterials 2022, 12, 3507. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
112. Yang, S.; Cheng, Y.; Chen, Z.; Liu, T.; Yin, L.; Pu, Y.; Liang, G. In vitro evaluation of nanoplastics using human lung epithelial cells,
microarray analysis and co-culture model. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021, 226, 112837. [CrossRef]
113. Annangi, B.; Villacorta, A.; Vela, L.; Tavakolpournegari, A.; Marcos, R.; Hernández, A. Effects of true-to-life PET nanoplastics
using primary human nasal epithelial cells. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2023, 100, 104140. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
114. Choi, D.; Hwang, J.; Bang, J.; Han, S.; Kim, T.; Oh, Y.; Hwang, Y.; Choi, J.; Hong, J. In vitro toxicity from a physical perspective
of polyethylene microplastics based on statistical curvature change analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 752, 142242. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
115. Weber, A.; Schwiebs, A.; Solhaug, H.; Stenvik, J.; Nilsen, A.M.; Wagner, M.; Relja, B.; Radeke, H.H. Nanoplastics affect the
inflammatory cytokine release by primary human monocytes and dendritic cells. Environ. Int. 2022, 163, 107173. [CrossRef]
116. Sarma, D.K.; Dubey, R.; Samarth, R.M.; Shubham, S.; Chowdhury, P.; Kumawat, M.; Verma, V.; Tiwari, R.R.; Kumar, M. The
biological effects of polystyrene nanoplastics on human peripheral blood lymphocytes. Nanomaterials 2022, 12, 1632. [CrossRef]
117. Chen, J.; Xu, Z.; Liu, Y.; Mei, A.; Wang, X.; Shi, Q. Cellular absorption of polystyrene nanoplastics with different surface
functionalization and the toxicity to RAW264. 7 macrophage cells. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2023, 252, 114574. [CrossRef]
118. Caputi, S.; Diomede, F.; Lanuti, P.; Marconi, G.D.; Di Carlo, P.; Sinjari, B.; Trubiani, O. Microplastics affect the inflammation
pathway in human gingival fibroblasts: A study in the Adriatic Sea. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7782. [CrossRef]
119. Choi, D.; Bang, J.; Kim, T.; Oh, Y.; Hwang, Y.; Hong, J. In vitro chemical and physical toxicities of polystyrene microfragments in
human-derived cells. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 400, 123308. [CrossRef]
120. Fahrenfeld, N.L.; Arbuckle-Keil, G.; Beni, N.N.; Bartelt-Hunt, S.L. Source tracking microplastics in the freshwater environment.
TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2019, 112, 248–254. [CrossRef]
121. Karlsson, T.M.; Vethaak, A.D.; Almroth, B.C.; Ariese, F.; van Velzen, M.; Hassellöv, M.; Leslie, H.A. Screening for microplastics in
sediment, water, marine invertebrates and fish: Method development and microplastic accumulation. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 122,
403–408. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
122. Hidalgo-Ruz, V.; Gutow, L.; Thompson, R.C.; Thiel, M. Microplastics in the marine environment: A review of the methods used
for identification and quantification. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3060–3075. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
123. Filella, M. Questions of size and numbers in environmental research on microplastics: Methodological and conceptual aspects.
Environ. Chem. 2015, 12, 527–538. [CrossRef]
124. Hanvey, J.S.; Lewis, P.J.; Lavers, J.L.; Crosbie, N.D.; Pozo, K.; Clarke, B.O. A review of analytical techniques for quantifying
microplastics in sediments. Anal. Methods 2017, 9, 1369–1383. [CrossRef]
125. Xu, J.L.; Thomas, K.V.; Luo, Z.; Gowen, A.A. FTIR and Raman imaging for microplastics analysis: State of the art, challenges and
prospects. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2019, 119, 115629. [CrossRef]
126. Fries, E.; Dekiff, J.H.; Willmeyer, J.; Nuelle, M.T.; Ebert, M.; Remy, D. Identification of polymer types and additives in marine
microplastic particles using pyrolysis-GC/MS and scanning electron microscopy. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 2013, 15, 1949–1956.
[CrossRef]
127. Tianniam, S.; Bamba, T.; Fukusaki, E. Pyrolysis GC-MS-based metabolite fingerprinting for quality evaluation of commercial
Angelica acutiloba roots. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 2010, 109, 89–93. [CrossRef]
128. Dümichen, E.; Eisentraut, P.; Bannick, C.G.; Barthel, A.K.; Senz, R.; Braun, U. Fast identification of microplastics in complex
environmental samples by a thermal degradation method. Chemosphere 2017, 174, 572–5784. [CrossRef]
129. Dümichen, E.; Eisentraut, P.; Celina, M.; Braun, U. Automated thermal extraction-desorption gas chromatography mass
spectrometry: A multifunctional tool for comprehensive characterization of polymers and their degradation products.
J. Chromatogr. A 2019, 1592, 133–142. [CrossRef]
130. Shishkin, Y.L. The effect of sample mass and heating rate on DSC results when studying the fractional composition and oxidative
stability of lube base oils. Thermochim. Acta 2006, 444, 26–34. [CrossRef]
131. Rodríguez Chialanza, M.; Sierra, I.; Pérez Parada, A.; Fornaro, L. Identification and quantitation of semi-crystalline microplastics
using image analysis and differential scanning calorimetry. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 16767–16775. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
132. Huppertsberg, S.; Knepper, T.P. Instrumental analysis of microplastics—Benefits and challenges. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2018, 410,
6343–6352. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
133. Dierkes, G.; Lauschke, T.; Becher, S.; Schumacher, H.; Földi, C.; Ternes, T. Quantification of microplastics in environmental samples
via pressurized liquid extraction and pyrolysis-gas chromatography. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2019, 411, 6959–6968. [CrossRef]
134. Steinmetz, Z.; Kintzi, A.; Muñoz, K.; Schaumann, G.E. A simple method for the selective quantification of polyethylene,
polypropylene, and polystyrene plastic debris in soil by pyrolysis-gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis
2020, 147, 104803. [CrossRef]
135. Peters, C.A.; Hendrickson, E.; Minor, E.C.; Schreiner, K.; Halbur, J.; Bratton, S.P. Pyr-GC/MS analysis of microplastics extracted
from the stomach content of benthivore fish from the Texas Gulf Coast. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 137, 91–95. [CrossRef]
136. Funck, M.; Yildirim, A.; Nickel, C.; Schram, J.; Schmidt, T.C.; Tuerk, J. Identification of microplastics in wastewater after cascade
filtration using Pyrolysis-GC–MS. MethodsX 2020, 7, 100778. [CrossRef]
Water 2023, 15, 3535 28 of 32

137. El Hayany, B.; El Fels, L.; Quénéa, K.; Dignac, M.F.; Rumpel, C.; Gupta, V.K.; Hafidi, M. Microplastics from lagooning sludge to
composts as revealed by fluorescent staining-image analysis, Raman spectroscopy and pyrolysis-GC/MS. J. Environ. Manag. 2020,
275, 111249. [CrossRef]
138. Hendrickson, E.; Minor, E.C.; Schreiner, K. Microplastic abundance and composition in western Lake Superior as determined via
microscopy, Pyr-GC/MS, and FTIR. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 1787–1796. [CrossRef]
139. Becker, R.; Altmann, K.; Sommerfeld, T.; Braun, U. Quantification of microplastics in a freshwater suspended organic matter
using different thermoanalytical methods–outcome of an interlaboratory comparison. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2020, 148, 104829.
[CrossRef]
140. 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. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
141. Bitter, H.; Lackner, S. First quantification of semi-crystalline microplastics in industrial wastewaters. Chemosphere 2020, 258,
127388. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
142. Kühn, S.; Van Oyen, A.; Booth, A.M.; Meijboom, A.; Van Franeker, J.A. Marine microplastic: Preparation of relevant test materials
for laboratory assessment of ecosystem impacts. Chemosphere 2018, 213, 103–113. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
143. Lv, L.; He, L.; Jiang, S.; Chen, J.; Zhou, C.; Qu, J.; Lu, Y.; Hong, P.; Sun, S.; Li, C. In situ surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy for
detecting microplastics and nanoplastics in aquatic environments. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 728, 138449. [CrossRef]
144. Mehdinia, A.; Dehbandi, R.; Hamzehpour, A.; Rahnama, R. Identification of microplastics in the sediments of southern coasts of
the Caspian Sea, north of Iran. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 258, 113738. [CrossRef]
145. Lin, J.; Xu, X.M.; Yue, B.Y.; Xu, X.P.; Liu, J.Z.; Zhu, Q.; Wang, J.H. Multidecadal records of microplastic accumulation in the coastal
sediments of the East China Sea. Chemosphere 2021, 270, 128658. [CrossRef]
146. Deng, J.; Guo, P.; Zhang, X.; Su, H.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, Y.; Li, Y. Microplastics and accumulated heavy metals in restored mangrove
wetland surface sediments at Jinjiang Estuary (Fujian, China). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 159, 111482. [CrossRef]
147. Tiwari, M.; Rathod, T.D.; Ajmal, P.Y.; Bhangare, R.C.; Sahu, S.K. Distribution and characterization of microplastics in beach sand
from three different Indian coastal environments. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 140, 262–273. [CrossRef]
148. Wang, J.; Peng, J.; Tan, Z.; Gao, Y.; Zhan, Z.; Chen, Q.; Cai, L. Microplastics in the surface sediments from the Beijiang River littoral
zone: Composition, abundance, surface textures and interaction with heavy metals. Chemosphere 2017, 171, 248–258. [CrossRef]
149. Wang, Z.M.; Wagner, J.; Ghosal, S.; Bedi, G.; Wall, S. SEM/EDS and optical microscopy analyses of microplastics in ocean trawl
and fish guts. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 603, 616–626. [CrossRef]
150. Qin, Y.; Wang, Z.; Li, W.; Chang, X.; Yang, J.; Yang, F. Microplastics in the sediment of lake Ulansuhai of Yellow river basin, China.
Water Environ. Res. 2020, 92, 829–839. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
151. Zhang, J.; Wang, L.; Kannan, K. Polyethylene terephthalate and polycarbonate microplastics in pet food and feces from the United
States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 12035–12042. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
152. Li, J.; Liu, H.; Chen, J.P. Microplastics in freshwater systems: A review on occurrence, environmental effects, and methods for
microplastics detection. Water Res. 2018, 137, 362–374. [CrossRef]
153. 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. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
154. Van Cauwenberghe, L.; Devriese, L.; Galgani, F.; Robbens, J.; Janssen, C.R. Microplastics in sediments: A review of techniques,
occurrence and effects. Mar. Environ. Res. 2015, 111, 5–17. [CrossRef]
155. Prata, J.C.; da Costa, J.P.; Duarte, A.C.; Rocha-Santos, T. Methods for sampling and detection of microplastics in water and
sediment: A critical review. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2019, 110, 150–159. [CrossRef]
156. Wang, W.; Wang, J. Investigation of microplastics in aquatic environments: An overview of the methods used, from field sampling
to laboratory analysis. Trends Anal. Chem. 2018, 108, 195–202. [CrossRef]
157. Shi, H.; Wang, X.; Zhu, L.; Li, D. Comprehensive Comparison of Various Microplastic Sampling Methods in Sea Water: Implica-
tions for Data Compilation. Water 2023, 15, 1035. [CrossRef]
158. Delgado-Gallardo, J.; Sullivan, G.L.; Esteban, P.; Wang, Z.; Arar, O.; Li, Z.; Watson, T.M.; Sarp, S. From sampling to analysis:
A critical review of techniques used in the detection of micro-and nanoplastics in aquatic environments. ACS ES&T Water 2021, 1,
748–764. [CrossRef]
159. Silva, A.B.; Bastos, A.S.; Justino, C.I.; da Costa, J.P.; Duarte, A.C.; Rocha-Santos, T.A. Microplastics in the environment: Challenges
in analytical chemistry-A review. Anal. Chim. Acta 2018, 1017, 1–19. [CrossRef]
160. Anastasopoulou, A.; Mytilineou, C.; Smith, C.J.; Papadopoulou, K.N. Plastic debris ingested by deep-water fish of the Ionian Sea
(Eastern Mediterranean). Deep. Sea Res. Part I Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 2013, 74, 11–13. [CrossRef]
161. Dris, R.; Gasperi, J.; Rocher, V.; Saad, M.; Renault, N.; Tassin, B. Microplastic contamination in an urban area: A case study in
Greater Paris. Environ. Chem. 2015, 12, 592–599. [CrossRef]
162. Paradinas, L.M.; James, N.A.; Quinn, B.; Dale, A.; Narayanaswamy, B.E. A new collection tool-kit to sample microplastics from
the marine environment (sediment, seawater, and biota) using citizen science. Front. Mar. Sci. 2021, 8, 657709. [CrossRef]
163. Crawford, C.B.; Quinn, B. Microplastic Collection Techniques. In Microplastic Pollutants; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
2017; pp. 179–202. [CrossRef]
Water 2023, 15, 3535 29 of 32

164. Brander, S.M.; Renick, V.C.; Foley, M.M.; Steele, C.; Woo, M.; Lusher, A.; Carr, S.; Helm, P.; Box, C.; Cherniak, S.; et al. Sampling
and quality assurance and quality control: A guide for scientists investigating the occurrence of microplastics across matrices.
Appl. Spectrosc. 2020, 74, 1099–1125. [CrossRef]
165. Desforges, J.P.; Galbraith, M.; Dangerfield, N.; Ross, P.S. Widespread distribution of microplastics in subsurface seawater in the
NE Pacific Ocean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2014, 79, 94–99. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
166. Näkki, P.; Setälä, O.; Lehtiniemi, M. Seafloor sediments as microplastic sinks in the northern Baltic Sea–negligible upward
transport of buried microplastics by bioturbation. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 249, 74–81. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
167. Zobkov, M.B.; Esiukova, E.E. Microplastics in a Marine Environment: Review of Methods for Sampling, Processing, and Analyzing
Microplastics in Water, Bottom Sediments, and Coastal Deposits. Oceanology 2018, 58, 137–143. [CrossRef]
168. Zhang, K.; Su, J.; Xiong, X.; Wu, X.; Wu, C.; Liu, J. Microplastic pollution of lakeshore sediments from remote lakes in Tibet
plateau, China. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 219, 450–455. [CrossRef]
169. Ashton, K.; Holmes, L.; Turner, A. Association of metals with plastic production pellets in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 2010, 60, 2050–2055. [CrossRef]
170. Mato, Y.; Isobe, T.; Takada, H.; Kanehiro, H.; Ohtake, C.; Kaminuma, T. Plastic resin pellets as a transport medium for toxic
chemicals in the marine environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2001, 35, 318–324. [CrossRef]
171. Blumenröder, J.; Sechet, P.; Kakkonen, J.E.; Hartl, M.G. Microplastic contamination of intertidal sediments of Scapa Flow, Orkney:
A first assessment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 124, 112–120. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
172. Scherer, C.; Weber, A.; Stock, F.; Vurusic, S.; Egerci, H.; Kochleus, C.; Arendt, N.; Foeldi, C.; Dierkes, G.; Wagner, M.; et al.
Comparative assessment of microplastics in water and sediment of a large European river. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 738, 139866.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
173. Van Cauwenberghe, L.; Vanreusel, A.; Mees, J.; Janssen, C.R. Microplastic pollution in deep-sea sediments. Environ. Pollut. 2013,
182, 495–499. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
174. Claessens, M.; De Meester, S.; Van Landuyt, L.; De Clerck, K.; Janssen, C.R. Occurrence and distribution of microplastics in marine
sediments along the Belgian coast. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62, 2199–2204. [CrossRef]
175. Hu, K.; Tian, W.; Yang, Y.; Nie, G.; Zhou, P.; Wang, Y.; Duan, X.; Wang, S. Microplastics remediation in aqueous systems: Strategies
and technologies. Water Res. 2021, 198, 117144. [CrossRef]
176. Chellasamy, G.; Kiriyanthan, R.M.; Maharajan, T.; Radha, A.; Yun, K. Remediation of microplastics using bionanomaterials:
A review. Environ. Res. 2022, 208, 112724. [CrossRef]
177. Poerio, T.; Piacentini, E.; Mazzei, R. Membrane processes for microplastic removal. Molecules 2019, 24, 4148. [CrossRef]
178. Zhang, Y.; Jiang, H.; Bian, K.; Wang, H.; Wang, C. A critical review of control and removal strategies for microplastics from
aquatic environments. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 105463. [CrossRef]
179. Ma, B.; Xue, W.; Hu, C.; Liu, H.; Qu, J.; Li, L. Characteristics of microplastic removal via coagulation and ultrafiltration during
drinking water treatment. Chem. Eng. J. 2019, 359, 159–167. [CrossRef]
180. Sun, J.; Zhu, Z.R.; Li, W.H.; Yan, X.; Wang, L.K.; Zhang, L.; Jin, J.; Dai, X.; Ni, B.J. Revisiting microplastics in landfill leachate:
Unnoticed tiny microplastics and their fate in treatment works. Water Res. 2021, 190, 116784. [CrossRef]
181. Zhang, Z.; Su, Y.; Zhu, J.; Shi, J.; Huang, H.; Xie, B. Distribution and removal characteristics of microplastics in different processes
of the leachate treatment system. Waste Manag. 2021, 120, 240–247. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
182. Jiang, S.; Li, Y.; Ladewig, B.P. A review of reverse osmosis membrane fouling and control strategies. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 595,
567–583. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
183. Li, L.; Xu, G.; Yu, H.; Xing, J. Dynamic membrane for micro-particle removal in wastewater treatment: Performance and
influencing factors. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 627, 332–340. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
184. Wang, Z.; Lin, T.; Chen, W. Occurrence and removal of microplastics in an advanced drinking water treatment plant (ADWTP).
Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 700, 134520. [CrossRef]
185. Rajala, K.; Grönfors, O.; Hesampour, M.; Mikola, A. Removal of microplastics from secondary wastewater treatment plant effluent
by coagulation/flocculation with iron, aluminum and polyamine-based chemicals. Water Res. 2020, 183, 116045. [CrossRef]
186. Zhou, G.; Wang, Q.; Li, J.; Li, Q.; Xu, H.; Ye, Q.; Wang, Y.; Shu, S.; Zhang, J. Removal of polystyrene and polyethylene microplastics
using PAC and FeCl3 coagulation: Performance and mechanism. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 752, 141837. [CrossRef]
187. Lu, S.; Liu, L.; Yang, Q.; Demissie, H.; Jiao, R.; An, G.; Wang, D. Removal characteristics and mechanism of microplastics and
tetracycline composite pollutants by coagulation process. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 786, 147508. [CrossRef]
188. Sembiring, E.; Fajar, M.; Handajani, M. Performance of rapid sand filter–single media to remove microplastics. Water Supply 2021,
21, 2273–2284. [CrossRef]
189. Alvim, C.B.; Bes-Piá, M.A.; Mendoza-Roca, J.A. An innovative approach to the application of ultrasounds to remove polyethylene
microspheres from activated sludge. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2021, 264, 118429. [CrossRef]
190. Fechine, G.J.; Souto-Maior, R.M.; Rabello, M.S. Structural changes during photodegradation of poly (ethylene terephthalate).
J. Mater. Sci. 2002, 37, 4979–4984. [CrossRef]
191. Wilken, R.; Holländer, A.; Behnisch, J. Vacuum ultraviolet photolysis of polyethylene, polypropylene, and polystyrene. Plasmas
Polym. 2002, 7, 19–39. [CrossRef]
192. Suhrhoff, T.J.; Scholz-Böttcher, B.M. Qualitative impact of salinity, UV radiation and turbulence on leaching of organic plastic
additives from four common plastics—A lab experiment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 102, 84–94. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Water 2023, 15, 3535 30 of 32

193. Nabi, I.; Li, K.; Cheng, H.; Wang, T.; Liu, Y.; Ajmal, S.; Yang, Y.; Feng, Y.; Zhang, L. Complete photocatalytic mineralization of
microplastic on TiO2 nanoparticle film. iScience 2020, 23, 101326. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
194. Tofa, T.S.; Ye, F.; Kunjali, K.L.; Dutta, J. Enhanced visible light photodegradation of microplastic fragments with plasmonic
platinum/zinc oxide nanorod photocatalysts. Catalysts 2019, 9, 819. [CrossRef]
195. Liu, G.; Liao, S.; Zhu, D.; Hua, Y.; Zhou, W. Innovative photocatalytic degradation of polyethylene film with boron-doped
cryptomelane under UV and visible light irradiation. Chem. Eng. J. 2012, 213, 286–294. [CrossRef]
196. Miao, F.; Liu, Y.; Gao, M.; Yu, X.; Xiao, P.; Wang, M.; Wang, S.; Wang, X. Degradation of polyvinyl chloride microplastics via an
electro-Fenton-like system with a TiO2/graphite cathode. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 399, 123023. [CrossRef]
197. Piazza, V.; Uheida, A.; Gambardella, C.; Garaventa, F.; Faimali, M.; Dutta, J. Ecosafety screening of photo-fenton process for the
degradation of microplastics in water. Front. Mar. Sci. 2022, 8, 791431. [CrossRef]
198. Zafar, R.; Park, S.Y.; Kim, C.G. Surface modification of polyethylene microplastic particles during the aqueous-phase ozonation
process. Environ. Eng. Res. 2021, 26, 200412. [CrossRef]
199. Chen, R.; Qi, M.; Zhang, G.; Yi, C. Comparative Experiments on Polymer Degradation Technique of Produced Water of Polymer
Flooding Oilfield. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2018; Volume 113,
p. 012208. [CrossRef]
200. Roager, L.; Sonnenschein, E.C. Bacterial candidates for colonization and degradation of marine plastic debris. Environ. Sci. Technol.
2019, 53, 11636–11643. [CrossRef]
201. Yoshida, S.; Hiraga, K.; Takehana, T.; Taniguchi, I.; Yamaji, H.; Maeda, Y.; Toyohara, K.; Miyamoto, K.; Kimura, Y.; Oda, K. A
bacterium that degrades and assimilates poly (ethylene terephthalate). Science 2016, 351, 1196–1199. [CrossRef]
202. Amobonye, A.; Bhagwat, P.; Singh, S.; Pillai, S. Plastic biodegradation: Frontline microbes and their enzymes. Sci. Total Environ.
2021, 759, 143536. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
203. Espinosa, M.J.; Blanco, A.C.; Schmidgall, T.; Atanasoff-Kardjalieff, A.K.; Kappelmeyer, U.; Tischler, D.; Pieper, D.H.; Heipieper,
H.J.; Eberlein, C. Toward biorecycling: Isolation of a soil bacterium that grows on a polyurethane oligomer and monomer. Front.
Microbiol. 2020, 11, 404. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
204. Padervand, M.; Lichtfouse, E.; Robert, D.; Wang, C. Removal of microplastics from the environment. A review. Environ. Chem.
Lett. 2020, 18, 807–828. [CrossRef]
205. Ndahebwa Muhonja, C.; Magoma, G.; Imbuga, M.; Makonde, H.M. Molecular characterization of low-density polyethene (LDPE)
degrading bacteria and fungi from Dandora dumpsite, Nairobi, Kenya. Int. J. Microbiol. 2018, 2018, 4167845. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
206. Mohan, K. Microbial deterioration and degradation of polymeric materials. J. Biochem. Technol. 2011, 2, 210–215.
207. Thakur, S.; Mathur, S.; Patel, S.; Paital, B. Microplastic Accumulation and Degradation in Environment via Biotechnological
Approaches. Water 2022, 14, 4053. [CrossRef]
208. Ojha, N.; Pradhan, N.; Singh, S.; Barla, A.; Shrivastava, A.; Khatua, P.; Rai, V.; Bose, S. Evaluation of HDPE and LDPE degradation
by fungus, implemented by statistical optimization. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 39515. [CrossRef]
209. Yadav, V.; Dhanger, S.; Sharma, J. Microplastics accumulation in agricultural soil: Evidence for the presence, potential effects,
extraction, and current bioremediation approaches. J. Appl. Biol. Biotechnol. 2022, 10, 38–47. [CrossRef]
210. Raaman, N.; Rajitha, N.; Jayshree, A.; Jegadeesh, R. Biodegradation of plastic by Aspergillus spp. isolated from polythene
polluted sites around Chennai. J. Acad. Indus. Res. 2012, 1, 313–316.
211. Yoshida, S.; Hiraga, K.; Taniguchi, I.; Oda, K. Ideonella sakaiensis, PETase, and MHETase: From Identification of Microbial PET
Degradation to Enzyme Characterization. In Methods in Enzymolog; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2021; Volume 648,
pp. 187–205. [CrossRef]
212. Zhang, X.; Li, Y.; Ouyang, D.; Lei, J.; Tan, Q.; Xie, L.; Li, Z.; Liu, T.; Xiao, Y.; Farooq, T.H.; et al. Systematical review of interactions
between microplastics and microorganisms in the soil environment. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 418, 126288. [CrossRef]
213. da Costa, A.M.; de Oliveira Lopes, V.R.; Vidal, L.; Nicaud, J.M.; de Castro, A.M.; Coelho, M.A. Poly (ethylene terephthalate)(PET)
degradation by Yarrowia lipolytica: Investigations on cell growth, enzyme production and monomers consumption. Process
Biochem. 2020, 95, 81–90. [CrossRef]
214. Kiriyanthan, R.M.; Maharajan, T.; Radha, A.; Pandikumar, P. A Review on The Role of Nanotechnology in Enhancing Environ-
mental Sustainability. Chem. Biol. Interface 2021, 11, 13–33.
215. Jalvo, B.; Aguilar-Sanchez, A.; Ruiz-Caldas, M.X.; Mathew, A.P. Water filtration membranes based on non-woven cellulose fabrics:
Effect of nanopolysaccharide coatings on selective particle rejection, antifouling, and antibacterial properties. Nanomaterials 2021,
11, 1752. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
216. Martin, L.M.; Sheng, J.; Zimba, P.V.; Zhu, L.; Fadare, O.O.; Haley, C.; Wang, M.; Phillips, T.D.; Conkle, J.; Xu, W. Testing an iron
oxide nanoparticle-based method for magnetic separation of nanoplastics and microplastics from water. Nanomaterials 2022, 12,
2348. [CrossRef]
217. Cao, B.; Wan, S.; Wang, Y.; Guo, H.; Ou, M.; Zhong, Q. Highly-efficient visible-light-driven photocatalytic H2 evolution integrated
with microplastic degradation over MXene/ZnxCd1-xS photocatalyst. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2022, 605, 311–319. [CrossRef]
218. Kang, J.; Zhou, L.; Duan, X.; Sun, H.; Ao, Z.; Wang, S. Degradation of cosmetic microplastics via functionalized carbon nanosprings.
Matter 2019, 1, 745–758. [CrossRef]
219. Ye, H.; Wang, Y.; Liu, X.; Xu, D.; Yuan, H.; Sun, H.; Wang, S.; Ma, X. Magnetically steerable iron oxides-manganese dioxide
core–shell micromotors for organic and microplastic removals. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2021, 588, 510–521. [CrossRef]
Water 2023, 15, 3535 31 of 32

220. Peydayesh, M.; Suta, T.; Usuelli, M.; Handschin, S.; Canelli, G.; Bagnani, M.; Mezzenga, R. Sustainable removal of microplastics
and natural organic matter from water by coagulation–flocculation with protein amyloid fibrils. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 55,
8848–8858. [CrossRef]
221. Kabir, M.S.; Wang, H.; Luster-Teasley, S.; Zhang, L.; Zhao, R. Microplastics in landfill leachate: Sources, detection, occurrence, and
removal. Environ. Sci. Ecotechnol. 2023, 16, 100256. [CrossRef]
222. Pico, Y.; Alfarhan, A.; Barcelo, D. Nano-and microplastic analysis: Focus on their occurrence in freshwater ecosystems and
remediation technologies. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2019, 113, 409–425. [CrossRef]
223. Dey, T.K.; Jamal, M.; Uddin, M.E. Fabrication and performance analysis of graphene oxide-based composite membrane to separate
microplastics from synthetic wastewater. J. Water Process Eng. 2023, 52, 103554. [CrossRef]
224. Malankowska, M.; Echaide-Gorriz, C.; Coronas, J. Microplastics in marine environment: A review on sources, classification, and
potential remediation by membrane technology. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 2021, 7, 243–258. [CrossRef]
225. Shen, M.; Song, B.; Zhu, Y.; Zeng, G.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, Y.; Wen, X.; Chen, M.; Yi, H. Removal of microplastics via drinking water
treatment: Current knowledge and future directions. Chemosphere 2020, 251, 126612. [CrossRef]
226. Ma, J.; Wang, Z.; Xu, Y.; Wang, Q.; Wu, Z.; Grasmick, A. Organic matter recovery from municipal wastewater by using dynamic
membrane separation process. Chem. Eng. J. 2013, 219, 190–199. [CrossRef]
227. Saleem, M.; Alibardi, L.; Cossu, R.; Lavagnolo, M.C.; Spagni, A. Analysis of fouling development under dynamic membrane
filtration operation. Chem. Eng. J. 2017, 312, 136–143. [CrossRef]
228. Jiang, J.Q. The role of coagulation in water treatment. Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 2015, 8, 36–44. [CrossRef]
229. Mahamuni, N.N.; Adewuyi, Y.G. Advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) involving ultrasound for wastewater treatment: A review
with emphasis on cost estimation. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2010, 17, 990–1003. [CrossRef]
230. Deng, Y.; Zhao, R. Advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) in wastewater treatment. Curr. Pollut. Rep. 2015, 1, 167–176. [CrossRef]
231. Du, H.; Xie, Y.; Wang, J. Microplastic degradation methods and corresponding degradation mechanism: Research status and
future perspectives. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 418, 126377. [CrossRef]
232. Bule Možar, K.; Miloloža, M.; Martinjak, V.; Cvetnić, M.; Kušić, H.; Bolanča, T.; Kučić Grgić, D.; Ukić, Š. Potential of Advanced
Oxidation as Pretreatment for Microplastics Biodegradation. Separations 2023, 10, 132–157. [CrossRef]
233. Kim, S.; Sin, A.; Nam, H.; Park, Y.; Lee, H.; Han, C. Advanced oxidation processes for microplastics degradation: A recent trend.
Chem. Eng. J. Adv. 2022, 9, 100213. [CrossRef]
234. Moussavi, G.; Shekoohiyan, S. Simultaneous nitrate reduction and acetaminophen oxidation using the continuous-flow chemical-
less VUV process as an integrated advanced oxidation and reduction process. J. Hazard. Mater. 2016, 318, 329–338. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
235. Stefan, M.I. (Ed.) Advanced Oxidation Processes for Water Treatment: Fundamentals and Applications; IWA Publishing: London, UK,
2017; ISBN 978-1-78040-718-0.
236. Wang, J.C.; Wang, H.; Huang, L.L.; Wang, C.Q. Surface treatment with Fenton for separation of acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene
and polyvinylchloride waste plastics by flotation. Waste Manag. 2017, 67, 20–26. [CrossRef]
237. Pignatello, J.J.; Oliveros, E.; MacKay, A. Advanced oxidation processes for organic contaminant destruction based on the Fenton
reaction and related chemistry. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 36, 1–84. [CrossRef]
238. Gong, J.; Liu, Y.; Sun, X. O3 and UV/O3 oxidation of organic constituents of biotreated municipal wastewater. Water Res. 2008, 42,
1238–1244. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
239. Shao, Y.; Pang, Z.; Wang, L.; Liu, X. Efficient degradation of acesulfame by ozone/peroxymonosulfate advanced oxidation process.
Molecules 2019, 24, 2874. [CrossRef]
240. Fischbacher, A.; von Sonntag, J.; von Sonntag, C.; Schmidt, T.C. The• OH radical yield in the H2O2+ O3 (peroxone) reaction.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 9959–9964. [CrossRef]
241. Von Sonntag, C.; Von Gunten, U. Chemistry of Ozone in Water and Wastewater Treatment; IWA Publishing: London, UK, 2012;
ISBN 978-1-78040-083-9.
242. Zhou, Y.; Kumar, M.; Sarsaiya, S.; Sirohi, R.; Awasthi, S.K.; Sindhu, R.; Binod, P.; Pandey, A.; Bolan, N.S.; Zhang, Z.; et al.
Challenges and opportunities in bioremediation of micro-nano plastics: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 802, 149823. [CrossRef]
243. Tiwari, N.; Santhiya, D.; Sharma, J.G. Microbial remediation of micro-nano plastics: Current knowledge and future trends.
Environ. Pollut. 2020, 265, 115044. [CrossRef]
244. Rao, V.V.; Sonashree, R.; Halbavi, R.R. Review on Plastic Waste Disposal and Role of Microorganisms in Bioremediation of Plastics.
In Research Anthology on Emerging Techniques in Environmental Remediation; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2022; pp. 481–492.
[CrossRef]
245. Yuan, J.; Ma, J.; Sun, Y.; Zhou, T.; Zhao, Y.; Yu, F. Microbial degradation and other environmental aspects of microplastics/plastics.
Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 715, 136968. [CrossRef]
246. Gan, Z.; Zhang, H. PMBD: A comprehensive plastics microbial biodegradation database. Database 2019, 2019, baz119. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
247. Sanniyasi, E.; Gopal, R.K.; Gunasekar, D.K.; Raj, P.P. Biodegradation of low-density polyethylene (LDPE) sheet by microalga,
Uronema africanum Borge. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 17233. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Water 2023, 15, 3535 32 of 32

248. Bhuyar, P.; Sundararaju, S.; Feng, H.X.; Rahim, M.H.; Muniyasamy, S.; Maniam, G.P.; Govindan, N. Evaluation of Microalgae’s
Plastic Biodeterioration Property by a Consortium of Chlorella sp. and Cyanobacteria sp. Environ. Res. Eng. Manag. 2021, 77, 86–98.
[CrossRef]
249. Samat, A.F.; Carter, D.; Abbas, A. Biodeterioration of pre-treated polypropylene by Aspergillus terreus and Engyodontium album.
NPJ Mater. Degrad. 2023, 7, 28. [CrossRef]
250. Maćczak, P.; Kaczmarek, H.; Ziegler-Borowska, M. Recent achievements in polymer bio-based flocculants for water treatment.
Materials 2020, 13, 3951. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
251. Zheng, A.L.; Andou, Y. Detection and remediation of bisphenol A (BPA) using graphene-based materials: Mini-review. Int. J.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 19, 6869–6888. [CrossRef]
252. Zhu, Y.; Liu, X.; Hu, Y.; Wang, R.; Chen, M.; Wu, J.; Wang, Y.; Kang, S.; Sun, Y.; Zhu, M. Behavior, remediation effect and toxicity
of nanomaterials in water environments. Environ. Res. 2019, 174, 54–60. [CrossRef]
253. Jain, K.; Patel, A.S.; Pardhi, V.P.; Flora, S.J. Nanotechnology in wastewater management: A new paradigm towards wastewater
treatment. Molecules 2021, 26, 1797. [CrossRef]
254. Grbic, J.; Nguyen, B.; Guo, E.; You, J.B.; Sinton, D.; Rochman, C.M. Magnetic extraction of microplastics from environmental
samples. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2019, 6, 68–72. [CrossRef]
255. Sethi, B. Recycling of polymers in the presence of nanocatalysts: A green approach towards sustainable environment. Int. J. Chem.
Mol. Eng. 2016, 10, 525–531. [CrossRef]
256. Mishra, A.; Kumar, J.; Melo, J.S. Silica based bio-hybrid materials and their relevance to bionanotechnology. Austin J. Plant Biol.
2020, 6, 1024.
257. Vázquez-Núñez, E.; Molina-Guerrero, C.E.; Peña-Castro, J.M.; Fernández-Luqueño, F.; de la Rosa-Álvarez, M.G. Use of nanotech-
nology for the bioremediation of contaminants: A review. Processes 2020, 8, 826. [CrossRef]
258. Walker, T.R. (Micro) plastics and the UN sustainable development goals. Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem. 2021, 30, 100497.
[CrossRef]
259. United Nations (UN). Resolution 70/1 in 2015: Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United
Nations General Assembly. 2015. Available online: https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1
&Lang=E (accessed on 10 August 2023).
260. Rai, M.; Pant, G.; Pant, K.; Aloo, B.N.; Kumar, G.; Singh, H.B.; Tripathi, V. Microplastic Pollution in Terrestrial Ecosystems and Its
Interaction with Other Soil Pollutants: A Potential Threat to Soil Ecosystem Sustainability. Resources 2023, 12, 67. [CrossRef]
261. Ragaert, K.; Delva, L.; Van Geem, K. Mechanical and chemical recycling of solid plastic waste. Waste Manag. 2017, 69, 24–58.
[CrossRef]
262. Xu, S.; Ma, J.; Ji, R.; Pan, K.; Miao, A.J. Microplastics in aquatic environments: Occurrence, accumulation, and biological effects.
Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 703, 134699. [CrossRef]
263. Borrelle, S.B.; Ringma, J.; Law, K.L.; Monnahan, C.C.; Lebreton, L.; McGivern, A.; Murphy, E.; Jambeck, J.; Leonard, G.H.;
Hilleary, M.A.; et al. Predicted growth in plastic waste exceeds efforts to mitigate plastic pollution. Science 2020, 369, 1515–1518.
[CrossRef]
264. Silva, A.L.; Prata, J.C.; Walker, T.R.; Duarte, A.C.; Ouyang, W.; Barcelò, D.; Rocha-Santos, T. Increased plastic pollution due to
COVID-19 pandemic: Challenges and recommendations. Chem. Eng. J. 2021, 405, 126683. [CrossRef]
265. Shen, M.; Huang, W.; Chen, M.; Song, B.; Zeng, G.; Zhang, Y. (Micro) plastic crisis: Un-ignorable contribution to global greenhouse
gas emissions and climate change. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 254, 120138. [CrossRef]
266. Shen, M.; Ye, S.; Zeng, G.; Zhang, Y.; Xing, L.; Tang, W.; Wen, X.; Liu, S. Can microplastics pose a threat to ocean carbon
sequestration? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 150, 110712. [CrossRef]
267. Walker, T.R.; McKay, D.C. Comment on “five misperceptions surrounding the environmental impacts of single-use plastic”.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 55, 1339–1340. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
268. UNFCCC. Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. In Proceedings of the UN Climate
Change Conference (COP21), Paris, France, 12 December 2015. T.I.A.S. No. 16-1104.
269. Abdelhafeez, I.A.; Ramakrishna, S. Promising sustainable models toward water, air, and solid sustainable management in the
view of SDGs. Mater. Circ. Econ. 2021, 3, 21. [CrossRef]
270. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Combating Marine Plastic Litter and Microplastics Summary for Policymakers:
An Assessment of the Effectiveness of Relevant International, Regional and Subregional Governance Strategies and Approaches; United
Nations: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2017.
271. Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA). Convention on Plastic Pollution: Toward a New Global Agreement to Address Plastic
Pollution; Center for International Environmental Law: Washington, DC, USA, 2020.

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.