ArticlePDF AvailableLiterature Review

Plastic pollution: A focus on freshwater biodiversity

February 2021
AMBIO A Journal of the Human Environment

DOI:10.1007/s13280-020-01496-5

Authors:

Valter Monteiro de Azevedo-Santos

Marcelo Fulgêncio Guedes Brito

Federal University of Sergipe

Pedro Sartori Manoel

Queen's University

Júlia Fernandes Perroca

University of São Paulo

Show all 19 authorsHide

Plastics are dominant pollutants in freshwater ecosystems worldwide. Scientific studies that investigated the interaction between plastics and freshwater biodiversity are incipient, especially if compared to the marine realm. In this review, we provide a brief overview of plastic pollution in freshwater ecosystems around the world. We found evidence of plastic ingestion by 206 freshwater species, from invertebrates to mammals, in natural or semi-natural ecosystems. In addition, we reported other consequences of synthetic polymers in freshwater ecosystems—including, for instance, the entanglement of animals of different groups (e.g., birds). The problem of plastic pollution is complex and will need coordinated actions, such as recycling programs, correct disposal, stringent legislation, regular inspection, replacement of synthetic polymers with other materials, and ecological restoration. Current information indicates that the situation in freshwater ecosystems may be as detrimental as the pollution found in the ocean, although highly underappreciated.

Number of species with records of plastic ingestion in natural or semi-natural freshwater ecosystems of the world (Tables S1 to S6 in Supplementary Material 2)

…

Main actions needed to reduce (-) plastic pollution in freshwater ecosystems. All actions are connected (?)

…

Freshwater groups entangled in possible plastic objects* or plastic objects** in freshwaters ecosystems around the world (Methods in Supplementary Material 3)

…

Fig. S1 Plastic pollution in rural areas: (a) the release of plastic trash near the waterbody; (b) empty bottle of pesticide

…

Figures - uploaded by the authors

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Martin C.M. Blettler

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Valter Monteiro de Azevedo-Santos

Content may be subject to copyright.

REVIEW

Plastic pollution: A focus on freshwater biodiversity

Valter M. Azevedo-Santos , Marcelo F. G. Brito , Pedro S. Manoel ,

´lia F. Perroca, Jorge Luiz Rodrigues-Filho , Lucas R. P. Paschoal ,

Geslaine R. L. Gonc¸alves , Milena R. Wolf, Martı

´n C. M. Blettler ,

Marcelo C. Andrade , Andre

´B. Nobile , Felipe P. Lima ,

Ana M. C. Ruocco, Carolina V. Silva, Gilmar Perbiche-Neves,

Jorge L. Portinho, Tommaso Giarrizzo , Marlene S. Arcifa ,

Fernando M. Pelicice

Received: 7 July 2020 / Revised: 29 October 2020 / Accepted: 28 December 2020

Abstract Plastics are dominant pollutants in freshwater

ecosystems worldwide. Scientiﬁc studies that investigated

the interaction between plastics and freshwater biodiversity

are incipient, especially if compared to the marine realm.

In this review, we provide a brief overview of plastic

pollution in freshwater ecosystems around the world. We

found evidence of plastic ingestion by 206 freshwater

species, from invertebrates to mammals, in natural or semi-

natural ecosystems. In addition, we reported other

consequences of synthetic polymers in freshwater

ecosystems—including, for instance, the entanglement of

animals of different groups (e.g., birds). The problem of

plastic pollution is complex and will need coordinated

actions, such as recycling programs, correct disposal,

stringent legislation, regular inspection, replacement of

synthetic polymers with other materials, and ecological

restoration. Current information indicates that the situation

in freshwater ecosystems may be as detrimental as the

pollution found in the ocean, although highly

underappreciated.

Keywords Entanglement Ingestion Inland waters 

Law Microplastic Plants

INTRODUCTION

The scientiﬁc discovery of the ﬁrst type of plastic occurred

more than a century ago. Currently, the production of

different polymers reaches more than 300 000 000 tons

each year (Plastics Europe 2020). Several plastic materials

can be re-used or recycled, but many others must be dis-

carded after the use. Either way, if there is little or no

control over production and disposal chains—including

consistent recycling policies—plastic materials may be

incorrectly discarded and reach aquatic ecosystems (e.g.,

Eriksen et al. 2014; Chae and An 2017; Lebreton et al.

2017; Giarrizzo et al. 2019).

Much concern has been raised about plastic pollution in

the ocean (Cressey 2016), but this pollutant has increas-

ingly threatened freshwater ecosystems (Fig. 1). Lebreton

et al. (2017) showed that rivers on the planet contribute

with the input of synthetic polymers to the ocean.

Numerous studies (e.g., Ballent et al. 2016; Fischer et al.

2016; Ebere et al. 2019; Gonc¸alves et al. 2020) have also

shown the presence of plastics in rivers, sediment, and

areas associated to inland waters. This pollution is likely to

have numerous consequences for freshwater biodiversity,

environments, and ecosystem services. For instance, sev-

eral ﬁsh species in rivers and other inland environments

around the world have records of plastic ingestion by one

or more individuals (e.g., Andrade et al. 2019; Urbanski

et al. 2020). This is worrying because ﬁsh is an important

feeding resource for several aquatic and terrestrial organ-

isms, so they may act as vectors mobilizing and transfer-

ring plastic materials across food webs. Another concern is

the entanglement of animals (e.g., freshwater turtles, birds)

in ﬁshing nets and other plastic residuals (Ryan 2018;

Azevedo-Santos et al. in press). Other types of interactions

have also emerged (e.g., Blettler and Wantzen 2019),

including effects on aquatic algae and plants in laboratory

conditions (e.g., van Weert et al. 2019; Wu et al. 2019).

However, the consequences of plastics in freshwaters

remain poorly known, basically because few studies have

addressed the issue on these ecosystems (Blettler et al.

2018).

Supplementary Information The online version of this article

(https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01496-5) contains supplemen-

tary material, which is available to authorized users.

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2021

www.kva.se/en 123

Ambio

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01496-5

In this review, we brieﬂy present information about

plastic pollution in freshwater ecosystems. We also gath-

ered reports on the interactions between these synthetic

polymers and freshwater algae, plants and animals from

laboratorial to natural conditions. Lastly, we provide

guidance to reduce plastic pollution in freshwater

ecosystems.

PLASTICS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS

Freshwater ecosystems are the main destination of different

types of pollutants released in a watershed, because aquatic

environments are naturally located in valleys and lower

elevation terrains. Plastics disposed incorrectly (e.g.,

streets, roads, open landﬁlls) are carried by pluvial waters

Fig. 1 Examples of plastic pollution in freshwaters ecosystems of South America: aRocha River (Amazon basin), after crossing urban areas in

Cochabamba, Bolivia; bMan removing plastics (e.g., bottles) from Rocha River for recycling; c) polymer pollution in an urban river (Argentina);

dplastics accumulated in the margin of the middle Parana

´River (Isla Puente, Argentina); eplastic fragments (micro, meso and macro) collected

with ichthyoplankton nets in the Paraı

´ba do Sul River basin (Brazil); fremains of ﬁshing nets on the littoral zone of a Brazilian reservoir, after a

drawdown event

123 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2021

www.kva.se/en

Ambio

to waterbodies (e.g., Faure et al. 2015). Direct discards in

rivers, lakes, swamps and other freshwater environments

are also frequent (e.g., Gasperi et al. 2014). In fact, the

direct disposal of garbage and wastes in rivers is an old

tradition in urban and rural areas of the world, only con-

strained by modern legislation. Domestic and industrial

sewage may also conduct plastics to waterbodies, espe-

cially when products that include small plastic materials in

their composition (e.g., cosmetics) are released in efﬂuent

systems (Kalc

ˇı

´kova

´et al. 2017a). In rural areas, especially

in those subject to intensive agriculture, the incorrect dis-

posal of contaminated plastics such as pesticide packing is

common (e.g., Figs. S1 and S2 in Supplementary Material

1). Other vectors may play a role, sometimes causing

massive releases of plastic material in the environment

(Bruge et al. 2018; Azevedo-Santos et al. in press). Once

plastics reach freshwaters, they may, for example, be

trapped by instream structures (e.g., river banks, macro-

phytes, trees, rocks), go with the water current to ﬂoodplain

areas, or reach the sediment of contiguous sites (Faure et al.

2015; Peng et al. 2018; Weber and Opp 2020). Physical

and/or chemical weathering fragment synthetic polymers

into smaller particles over time (Li et al. 2018a), increasing

the number of particles in the freshwater ecosystem.

Some authors have attempted to assess the quantity of

plastics conducted by rivers (e.g., Lebreton et al. 2017), or

the presence of these synthetic polymers in freshwater

ecosystems (see Eerkes-Medrano et al. 2015 and Cera et al.

2020). Lebreton et al. (2017) reported that lotic ecosystems

are responsible for the input of more than 1 000 000 tons of

plastics into the marine ecosystems of the planet. Giarrizzo

et al. (2019) indicated that the Brazilian Amazon, including

its freshwater ecosystems, receives more than 150 000 tons

of synthetic polymers in a single year. Currently, plastic

pollution has been reported in freshwaters of several coun-

tries in different regions of the planet (Cera et al. 2020).

PLASTICS AND FRESHWATER BIODIVERSITY

Studies that investigate the interaction between plastics and

freshwater biodiversity are incipient when compared to

those that investigate the marine realm (Blettler et al.

2018). Most studies investigate the ingestion of plastics by

animals, but other interactions have also been examined.

Plastic alone may cause physical, toxic and behavioral

impacts, but its association with other pollutants may

enhance effects. For example, synthetic polymers may

interact with antibiotics (Li et al. 2018b) and other com-

pounds and molecules. Wang et al. (2017), in the Beijiang

River basin (China), found microplastics associated with

different metals, including nickel, cadmium and

lead. Other problem, showed in marine environments,

is the association of plastics with persistent organic pollu-

tants, the POPs (e.g., Frias et al. 2010), which are harmful

to biodiversity (Jones and Voogt 1999).

In this section, based on Methods in Supplementary

Material 2, we compiled evidence of plastic ingestion by

206 freshwater species in natural or semi-natural ecosys-

tems (Fig. 2). We also gathered information about other

interactions (e.g., entanglement). Here we synthesize the

available knowledge about the interactions of plastic with

freshwater algae, plants and animals. In a few cases, we

used studies from marine ecosystems as a basis for

extrapolations.

Algae and plants

The interaction between algae or plants with plastics has

been poorly studied, but laboratory experiments show that

plastics may cause negative impacts on these organisms

(Kalc

ˇı

´kova

´et al. 2017b; Wu et al. 2019). A recent study

(Wu et al. 2019) showed that the algae Chlorella

pyrenoidosa Chick, 1903, exposed to plastics, decreased its

photosynthetic production. In controlled conditions, Kal-

ˇı

´kova

´et al. (2017b) evaluated the consequences of poly-

ethylene ‘‘spheres’’, commonly found in cosmetics, on

Lemna minor Griff, 1851, and found that tiny plastics

affect root development. Aquatic algae or plants may

absorb small-sized particles, with risk of making plastic

available to secondary consumers (e.g., Chae et al. 2018;

Mateos-Ca

´rdenas et al. 2019). Field studies are lacking, but

algae and plants in natural ecosystems are likely to respond

in a similar way.

Crustaceans

Freshwater crustaceans are susceptible to interact with

different types of plastic. Some groups, such as Cladocera,

Fig. 2 Number of species with records of plastic ingestion in natural

or semi-natural freshwater ecosystems of the world (Tables S1 to S6

in Supplementary Material 2)

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2021

www.kva.se/en 123

Ambio

Amphipoda and Decapoda, have the potential to ingest

plastic particles (Table S1 in Supplementary Material 2).

We found reports of plastic ingestion by 9 species of

Crustacea, two in natural and semi-natural environments,

and others in controlled conditions (Table S1 in Supple-

mentary Material 2). The negative effects of plastic mate-

rial on crustaceans may be lethal or sublethal (Table 1). For

instance, Cui et al. (2017) evaluated in laboratory condi-

tions the consequences of polystyrene on cladocerans, and

found effects ranging from decreased survival to changes

in the ability to reproduce. It is possible that the mere

presence of certain types of plastics in the environment

causes sublethal to lethal effects (e.g., Ziajahromi et al.

2017).

Entanglement in ghost nets affects freshwater decapod

crustaceans, but there is only one study reporting this

problem in natural ecosystems. Spirkovski et al. (2019)

reported individuals of Potamon ﬂuviatile (Herbst, 1785)

and Astacus astacus (Linnaeus, 1758) entangled in ghost

nets in a lake in Europe. Based on this evidence, we predict

that large-bodied decapods—e.g., families Trichodactyli-

dae and Pseudothelphusidae—may be more vulnerable to

entanglement in ghost nets of polyamide or other plastic

objects (e.g., ring, bottles).

Other invertebrates

Different groups of invertebrates are able to ingest plastics

in laboratory or natural conditions (Table S2 in Supple-

mentary Material 2). In natural conditions, we found

reports for six species (Fig. 2), among these Melanoides

tuberculata (Mu

¨ller, 1774) (Table S2), an invasive gas-

tropod widely introduced (Coelho et al. 2018). In labora-

tory conditions, negative effects caused by the uptake of

synthetic polymers have been investigated for insects

(especially larval stages), mollusks (bivalves and

gastropods), and freshwater cnidarians (e.g., Magni et al.

2018; Murphy and Quinn 2018; Ziajahromi et al. 2018;

Scherer et al. 2020). For example, Stankovic

´et al. (2020)

concluded that the exposition of Chironomus riparius

(Meigen, 1804) to six types of synthetic polymers caused

problems in head structures of the individuals.Murphy and

Quinn (2018) showed that plastic ingestion by Hydra

attenuata Pallas, 1766 affected the feeding of the animals,

in addition to causing morphological changes.

Many invertebrates may be frequently exposed to plastic

pollution, since numerous species live near the sediment in

aquatic environments (Rosenberg and Resh 1993; Moreno

and Callisto 2006), where plastic material accumulates,

including microplastic (e.g., Castan

˜eda et al. 2014; Horton

et al. 2017). Because studies demonstrated that macroin-

vertebrates are able to ingest plastic (e.g., Hurley et al.

2017), individuals of this group may constitute an impor-

tant input of plastic material into aquatic food webs.

Many species of Trichoptera build ‘‘cases’’ with frag-

ments of rock, wood and leaves in freshwater ecosystems

(Crisci-Bispo et al. 2004). Plastic may be used by these

insects to build such cases, as reported by Ehlers et al.

(2019) for Lepidostoma basale (Kolenati, 1848). In the

same study, authors suggested that the use of plastic frag-

ments may harm immature forms of Trichoptera.

Fishes

Freshwater ﬁshes are the group with most records of plastic

ingestion (Table S3 in Supplementary Material 2). It is

difﬁcult to provide an exact number, but Azevedo-Santos

et al. (2019a) compiled 75 freshwater species that ingested

plastics. Current estimates are above 150 species in natural

conditions (Fig. 2) and new studies have been published

continuously. This increasing trend indicates that plastic

ingestion by freshwater ﬁshes is more common than

Table 1 Examples of freshwater organisms negatively affected by plastic ingestion in laboratory or natural conditions

Group Species Condition Effects References

Crustacean Daphnia magna Straus, 1820 Laboratory Sublethal and Lethal Jemec et al. (2016) and Rehse et al. (2016)

Crustacean Daphnia pulex Leydig, 1860 Laboratory Sublethal Liu et al. (2018)

Crustacean Hyalella azteca (Saussure, 1858) Laboratory Lethal and sublethal Au et al. (2015)

Mollusk Corbicula ﬂuminea (Mu

¨ller, 1774) Laboratory Sublethal Guilhermino et al. (2018)

Mollusk Dreissena polymorpha Pallas, 1771 Laboratory Sublethal Magni et al. (2018)

Cnidarian Hydra attenuata Pallas, 1766 Laboratory Sublethal Murphy and Quinn (2018)

Fish Oreochromis niloticus (Linnaeus, 1758) Laboratory Sublethal Ding et al. (2018)

Fish Danio rerio (Hamilton, 1822) Laboratory Sublethal Mak et al. (2019) and Qiao et al. (2019)

Amphibian Alytes obstetricans (Laurenti, 1768) Laboratory Lethal Boyero et al. (2019)

Amphibian Physalaemus cuvieri Fitzinger, 1826 Laboratory Sublethal Arau

´jo et al. (2020) and Arau

´jo and Malafaia (2020)

Mammal Trichechus inunguis (Natterer, 1883) Natural Lethal Silva and Marmontel (2009)

123 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2021

www.kva.se/en

Ambio

currently reported, emphasizing the need for more research

in freshwater ecosystems, as research has been biased

toward marine ﬁshes (Azevedo-Santos et al. 2019a). There

is evidence of negative effects of plastic ingestion on

ﬁshes, but in laboratory conditions. For example, inﬂam-

matory processes in the digestive tract of Danio rerio

(Hamilton, 1822), the ‘‘zebraﬁsh’’, were observed after

exposure to polystyrene (Jin et al. 2018). The ingestion of

polystyrene, as well other types of plastics (i.e., poly-

amides, polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride),

caused injures to the intestine of ﬁshes (Lei et al. 2018). In

a study with the marine species Cyprinodon variegatus

Lacepe

`de, 1803, Choi et al. (2018, p. 238) concluded that

the ingestion of large amounts of polyethylene may cause

‘‘ ( …) gut distension and abnormal swimming behavior

(…)’’, which in natural conditions may lead to secondary

effects (e.g., vulnerability to predation).

In addition to problems related to ingestion, synthetic

polymers may adhere to ﬁsh gills (Table 2). This impact

has been poorly reported, but there are data for 24 species

(Table 2). Gills are vital structures for ﬁsh (Evans et al.

2005), and plastics—especially small fragments—may

clog or harm this organ, via obstruction and contamination.

Entanglement of ﬁsh has occurred in plastic rings

(Table 3). In addition, polyamide or other synthetic ﬁshing

nets, when lost or abandoned in the aquatic environ-

ment (i.e., ghost nets), have the potential to impact the

ichthyofauna for a long time. Azevedo-Santos et al. (in

press) presented several reports of ghost nets trapping ﬁsh

in Brazilian freshwater environments.

Table 2 Fish species with plastic particles in gills in different freshwater ecosystems of the world (Methods in Supplementary Material 2)

Fish species Waterbody Country (continent) References

Aequidens tetramerus (Heckel, 1840) Guama

´River Brazil (South America) Ribeiro-Brasil et al. (2020)

Bryconops melanurus (Bloch, 1794) Guama

´River Brazil (South America) Ribeiro-Brasil et al. (2020)

Carassius cuvieri Temminck &

Schlegel, 1846

Han River South Korea (Asia) Park et al. (2020)

Carnegiella strigata (Gu

¨nther, 1864) Guama

´River Brazil (South America) Ribeiro-Brasil et al. (2020)

Channa argus (Cantor, 1842) Han River South Korea (Asia) Park et al. (2020)

Copella arnoldi (Regan, 1912) Guama

´River Brazil (South America) Ribeiro-Brasil et al. (2020)

Crenicichla cf. regani Ploeg, 1989 Guama

´River Brazil (South America) Ribeiro-Brasil et al. (2020)

Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus, 1758 Han River and Lijiang River South Korea and China (Asia) Park et al. (2020) and Zhang

et al. (2020)

Dorosoma cepedianum (Lesueur,

1818)

Reservoirs from Bloomington USA (North America) Hurt et al. (2020)

Hemibagrus macropterus Bleeker,

1870

Lijiang River China (Asia) Zhang et al. (2020)

Hemigrammus unilineatus (Gill, 1858) Guama

´River Brazil (South America) Ribeiro-Brasil et al. (2020)

Hoplias malabaricus (Bloch, 1794) Guama

´River Brazil (South America) Ribeiro-Brasil et al. (2020)

Iguanodectes rachovii Regan, 1912 Guama

´River Brazil (South America) Ribeiro-Brasil et al. (2020)

Laimosemion strigatus (Regan, 1912) Guama

´River Brazil (South America) Ribeiro-Brasil et al. (2020)

Lepomis macrochirus Raﬁnesque,

1819

Han River South Korea (Asia) Park et al. (2020)

Mastiglanis cf. asopos Bockmann,

1994

Guama

´River Brazil (South America) Ribeiro-Brasil et al. (2020)

Megalechis thoracata (Valenciennes,

1840)

Guama

´River Brazil (South America) Ribeiro-Brasil et al. (2020)

Micropterus salmoides (Lacepe

`de,

1802)

Reservoirs from Bloomington and

Han River

USA (North America) and South

Korea (Asia)

Hurt et al. (2020); Park et al.

(2020)

Nannacara taenia Regan, 1912 Guama

´River Brazil (South America) Ribeiro-Brasil et al. (2020)

Pimelodella geryi Hoedeman, 1961 Guama

´River Brazil (South America) Ribeiro-Brasil et al. (2020)

Polycentrus schomburgkii Mu

¨ller &

Troschel, 1849

Guama

´River Brazil (South America) Ribeiro-Brasil et al. (2020)

Pseudobagrus vachellii (Richardson,

1846)

Lijiang River China (Asia) Zhang et al. (2020)

Silurus asotus Linnaeus, 1758 Han River South Korea (Asia) Park et al. (2020)

Tachysurus fulvidraco (Richardson,

1846)

Lijiang River China (Asia) Zhang et al. (2020)

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2021

www.kva.se/en 123

Ambio

Amphibians

The interaction of plastics with freshwater amphibians has

been reported predominantly for immature forms. Plastic

ingestion has been reported for 18 freshwater species

(Table S4 in Supplementary Material 2), 15 of them

ingested particles in natural environment (Fig. 2). Labora-

tory studies have revealed negative consequences on indi-

viduals exposed to plastic. Arau

´jo et al. (2020, p. 17)

concluded that plastic may ‘‘(…) cause external morpho-

logical, mutagenic and cytotoxic changes (…)’’ in tadpoles

of Physalaemus cuvieri Fitzinger, 1826.

Laboratorial studies have shown that microplastic may

adhere to the gill of amphibians (Hu et al. 2016), but there

is no evidence available for natural environments. Con-

sidering that it has been reported for wild ﬁshes (see Fishes

subsection), and that it was observed in laboratory condi-

tions for tadpoles (see Hu et al. 2016), it must disturb

amphibians in natural ecosystems as well.

Entanglement of large freshwater amphibians—espe-

cially by ghost nets and smaller fragments—may also be

problem. However, this is another gap in the literature.

Reptiles

There are several reports of impacts for reptiles, but they

are restricted to marine environments. For example,

ingestion of plastic fragments has been reported in more

than one continent and for different species of marine

reptiles (Schuyler et al. 2014; Nelms et al. 2016). Such

interaction may occur in freshwater environments as well,

considering that reptiles (e.g., caimans, turtles, snakes,

lizards) are found in numerous freshwater ecosystems of

the world. Moreover, many freshwater reptiles feed on

ﬁsh (e.g., Vogt and Guzman 1988; Schmid and Giarrizzo

2019), the group with the best evidence on plastic

ingestion among all freshwater animals (Fig. 2). Reptiles,

therefore, may ingest plastic directly and indirectly, as

birds, mammals and other animals that feed on ﬁsh.

Ghost nets are an important threat, despite the scarcity

of scientiﬁc reports in freshwaters (Table 3). In contrast,

entanglement of reptiles has been recorded more often in

marine environments (Duncan et al. 2017). Because ﬁshing

is a common activity in rivers, reservoirs and other inland

aquatic ecosystems (e.g., Castro and Begossi 1995; Okada

et al. 2011), where the incorrect disposal of nets is frequent

(Fig. 1f), entanglement by ghost nets of nylon (i.e., poly-

amides) must be a frequent problem.

Birds

Freshwater birds have been threatened by plastic pollution

(e.g., Gil-Delgado et al 2017). Individuals may ingest

plastic directly or indirectly (Reynolds and Ryan 2018).

We found records for 21 freshwater species (Fig. 2), one

classiﬁed as Near Threatened (Table S5 in Supplementary

Material 2). The main consequences of ingestion, based on

reports for marine species (e.g., Pierce et al. 2004), is the

obstruction of the digestive tract, with risk of starvation.

Experimental studies are incipient, and research has

Table 3 Freshwater groups entangled in possible plastic objects* or plastic objects** in freshwaters ecosystems around the world (Methods in

Supplementary Material 3)

Group Waterbodies Country Object References

Crustacean Lake Ohrid Macedonia Ghost net* Spirkovski et al. (2019)

Fish Lake from Guarulhos Brazil bottle ring** A.B. Nobile et al. (unpublished

data)

Fish Lake Ohrid Macedonia Ghost net* Spirkovski et al. (2019)

Fish Parana

´River system Argentina Ghost net** Blettler and Wantzen (2019)

Fish Upper Parana

´River system and unknown

waterbodies

Brazil Ghost net** Azevedo-Santos et al. (in press)

Reptile Upper Parana

´River system and unknown

waterbodies

Brazil Ghost net** Azevedo-Santos et al. (in press)

Bird Different waterbodies Different

countries

Different plastic

objects**

Ryan (2018)

Bird Lake from Campinas Brazil Likely plastic bag** Sazima and D’Angelo (2015)

Bird Lake Ohrid Macedonia Ghost net* Spirkovski et al. (2019)

Bird Parana

´River system Argentina Fishing line** Blettler and Wantzen (2019)

Bird Upper Parana

´River system Brazil Ghost net** Azevedo-Santos et al. (in press)

Mammal Amazon basin Brazil Ghost net* Iriarte and Marmontel (2013)

123 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2021

www.kva.se/en

Ambio

focused on physical aspects of the material ingested, such

as size, weight, number of ﬁbers, color and shape. In this

sense, the effects of plastic ingestion on bird physiology

and behavior is considerably underestimated.

Birds are also vulnerable to entanglement in plastic

objects (Table 3), as reported for many freshwater species

(Ryan 2018). Entanglement may cause sublethal to lethal

effects (e.g., Blettler and Wantzen 2019), but, in some

cases, birds can escape with minor consequences (Sazima

and D’Angelo 2015).

An underestimated problem is the construction of nest

with synthetic polymers (see Fig. 2in Blettler and Wantzen

2019). This behavior makes freshwater birds and their

offspring highly vulnerable to contamination, ingestion and

entanglement (Blettler and Wantzen 2019).

Mammals

Many freshwater mammals are currently threatened by

human activities (Veron et al. 2008), and these animals

interact negatively with plastics. For example, there are

records of plastic ingestion by Lutra lutra (Linnaeus,

1758), the Eurasian river otter (Smiroldo et al. 2019), and

Trichechus inunguis (Natterer, 1883),the Amazonian

manatee (Silva and Marmontel 2009; Guterres-Pazin et al.

2012), currently threatened with extinction and categorized

as ‘‘Vulnerable’’ (Table S6 in Supplementary Material 2).

For the species T. inunguis, Silva and Marmontel (2009)

reported that the ingestion of a synthetic polymer caused

the death of one individual.

Risks of entanglement are real, especially by ﬁshing nets

(e.g., bycatch and ghost nets). For instance, Mansur et al.

(2008) reported the entanglement of the freshwater dolphin

Platanista gangetica (Roxburgh, 1801) in fragments of ﬁshing

nets in Asia. In the Amazon, Silva and Best (1996)reporteda

case of entanglement and death of freshwater dolphins, Inia

geoffrensis (de Blainville, 1817) and Sotalia ﬂuviatilis Gervais

& Deville, 1853. Although events like these are known in

freshwater environments (e.g., Silva and Best 1996; Martin

et al. 2004), entanglement in ‘‘ghost nets’’ and other plastic

objects,as reported in marine ecosystems (see Stelfox et al.

2016 and references therein), needs more attention.

Other problem is that some freshwater mammals may

use synthetic polymers to build their holts, as reported for

the species Lutra lutra (Linnaeus, 1758) in Europe (Kruuk

2006). This behavior also exposes the animal to the risks of

plastic ingestion and entanglement.

FINAL REMARKS

Plastic pollution in the oceans is colossal and widely rec-

ognized by scientists and society (Derraik 2002; Cressey

2016). Plastic pollution in freshwaters have been less

recognized, even though plastics are dominant pollutants

in these ecosystems—especially near urban areas.

Mounting evidence indicate that plastics interact with

freshwater biodiversity, from plants to animals. For

example, plastic ingestion by animals has been reported

for more than 200 species, ranging from invertebrates to

mammals. Many studies, particularly conducted in labo-

ratory conditions, show negative effects (lethal and sub-

lethal) associated with ingestion, but consequences in the

wild are still poorly known for many groups. More

studies are needed to assess the extent of plastic pollution

in river networks and associated environments, and the

possible interactions with aquatic organisms. We highlight

that plastic pollution in freshwater ecosystems may be

as detrimental as in the ocean. Different measures are

needed to tackle this problem in all regions of the world,

since plastic pollution has affected numerous countries

with different degrees of development, for example, East

Timor, Finland, Kenya, Norway, Pakistan, Scotland,

Switzerland, Tanzania, USA and many others (Blettler

et al. 2018; Cera et al. 2020;Do

¨ring et al. 2017; Hurley

et al. 2017; Lusher et al. 2018; Blair et al. 2019; Sarijan

et al. 2019; Shruti et al. 2019; Slootmaekers et al. 2019;

Khan et al. 2020; Kus

´mierek and Popiołek 2020; Merga

et al. 2020; O’Connor et al. 2020).

Society must ﬁnd ways to reduce and remove existing

pollutants—including plastics—from natural and semi-

natural ecosystems. The problem is complex and will

need implementation or intensiﬁcation of many actions,

for example, recycling programs, correct disposal, strin-

gent legislation, regular inspection and ecological

restoration (Fig. 3). These actions, if taken accordingly,

will minimize plastic pollution on freshwaters and oceans.

Speciﬁc policies to regulate the use of plastics are needed,

as observed in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), with the Proposed

Law 1691/2015 to ban plastic straws (Supplementary

Material 4A), or in Kenya, with the Notice No. 2356 that

ban bags of synthetic polymers (Supplementary Material

4B). Focusing on marine ecosystems, the European Par-

liament approved the Directive (EU) 2019/904 on the

banishment of disposable plastics untill 2021 (Supple-

mentary Material 4C). International treaties at the world

level are also needed to regulate plastic production, trade

and disposal (Kirk and Popattanachai 2018). Concomi-

tantly, we need policies to improve solid waste treatment

and selective disposal, since these activities are precarious

or absent in under-developed and developing nations.

Improvements in infrastructure and technology may also

curb plastic inputs (e.g., ecologically adapted storm

drains), or help removing material from the environment

(Supplementary Material 4D–G). The implementation of

more restrictive protected areas, including freshwater

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2021

www.kva.se/en 123

Ambio

protected areas (Azevedo-Santos et al. 2019b), is another

form to avoid plastics in ecosystems. As showed for

another pollutants (e.g., Lowrance et al. 1984), the

maintenance of riparian vegetation may serve as a pro-

tective ﬁlter against synthetic polymers and, at least the-

oretically, it may trap meso and macroplastic, which

could be manually removed before reaching aquatic

ecosystems.

The ﬂow of nanoplastic, on the other hand, is much

more difﬁcult to control. It would require, for example, the

gradual replacement of traditional plastic by alternative

material (e.g., biodegradable compounds such as cassava

bags; Supplementary Material 4G), demanding investment

on research and production. One important step towards a

more responsible use of plastic materials (i.e., consumption

and disposal) is through education (e.g., Derraik 2002), and

different public and private initiatives should be

encouraged.

Acknowledgements We thank Michel Je

´gu, for providing pho-

tographs used in Fig. 1a and b. We are grateful to Raoul Henry

(UNESP), for providing comments on the ﬁrst draft of this

manuscript, to Nuno M. Pedroso (CENA), for providing literature

about Lutra lutra, and to the three reviewers that signiﬁcantly

improved the quality of this document. JFP is funded by FAPESP

(#2019/01308-5), MFGB and FMP received CNPq research grants,

and LRPP received FATEC grants. MCA is funded by PNPD/CAPES

(# 2017-6; Finance Code 001), TG received a productivity grant from

CNPq (#311078/2019-2), and JLP is funded by PNPD/CAPES (Pro-

cess Number 88887.473604/2020-00).

REFERENCES

Andrade, M.C., K.O. Winemiller, P.S. Barbosa, A. Fortunati, D.

Chelazzi, A. Cincinelli, and T. Giarrizzo. 2019. First account of

plastic pollution impacting freshwater ﬁshes in the Amazon:

Ingestion of plastic debris by piranhas and other serrasalmids

with diverse feeding habits. Environmental Pollution 244:

766–773.

Arau

´jo, A.P.C., and G. Malafaia. 2020. Can short exposure to

polyethylene microplastics change tadpoles’ behavior? A study

conducted with neotropical tadpole species belonging to order

anura (Physalaemus cuvieri). Journal of Hazardous Materials

391: 122214.

Arau

´jo, A.P.C., N.F.S. Melo, A.G. Oliveira-Junior, F.P. Rodrigues, T.

Fernandes, J.E. Andrade-Vieira, L.P. Rocha, and G. Malafaia.

2020. How much are microplastics harmful to the health of

amphibians? A study with pristine polyethylene microplastics

and Physalaemus cuvieri.Journal of Hazardous Materials 382:

121066.

Au, S.Y., T.F. Bruce, W.C. Bridges, and S.T. Klainey. 2015.

Responses of Hyalella azteca to acute and chronic microplastic

exposures. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 34:

2564–2572.

Azevedo-Santos, V.M., G.R.L. Gonc¸alves, P.S. Manoel, M.C.

Andrade, F.P. Lima, and F.M. Pelicice. 2019a. Plastic ingestion

by ﬁsh: A global assessment. Environmental Pollution 255:

112994.

Azevedo-Santos, V.M., R.G. Frederico, C.K. Fagundes, P.S. Pompeu,

F.M. Pelicice, A.A. Padial, M.G. Nogueira, P.M. Fearnside, et al.

2019b. Protected areas: A focus on Brazilian freshwater

biodiversity. Diversity and Distributions 25: 442–448.

Azevedo-Santos, V.M., R.M. Hughes, and F.M. Pelicice. in press.

Ghost nets: A poorly known threat to Brazilian freshwater

biodiversity. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Cie

ˆncias.

Ballent, A., P.L. Corcoran, O. Madden, P.A. Helm, and F. Longstaffe.

2016. Sources and sinks of microplastics in Canadian Lake

Ontario nearshore, tributary and beach sediments. Marine

Pollution Bulletin 110: 383–395.

Blair, R.M., S. Waldron, V.R. Phoenix, and C. Gauchotte-Lindsay.

2019. Microscopy and elemental analysis characterization of

microplastics in sediment of a freshwater urban river in Scotland,

UK. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 26:

12491–12504.

Blettler, M.C.M., and K.M. Wantzen. 2019. Threats underestimated

in freshwater plastic pollution: Mini-Review. Water, Air, & Soil

Pollution 230: 174.

Blettler, M.C.M., E. Abrial, F.R. Khan, N. Sivri, and L.A. Espinola.

2018. Freshwater plastic pollution: Recognizing research biases

and identifying knowledge gaps. Water Research 143: 416–424.

Boyero, L., N. Lo

´pez-Rojo, J. Bosch, A. Alonso, F. Correa-Araneda,

and J. Pe

´rez. 2019. Microplastics impair amphibian survival,

body condition and function. Chemosphere 244: 125500.

Bruge, A., C. Barreau, J. Carlot, H. Collin, C. Moreno, and P. Maison.

2018. Monitoring litter inputs from the Adour River (Southwest

France) to the marine environment. Journal of Marine Science

and Engeneering 6: 24.

Castan

˜eda, R.A., S. Avlijas, M.A. Simard, and A. Ricciardi. 2014.

Microplastic pollution in St. Lawrence River sediments. Cana-

dian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 71: 1767–1771.

Castro, F., and A. Begossi. 1995. Ecology of ﬁshing on the Grande

River (Brazil): Technology and territorial rights. Fisheries

Research 23: 361–373.

Cera, A., G. Cesarini, and M. Scalici. 2020. Microplastics in

freshwater: What is the news from the World? Diversity 12

(7): 276.

Fig. 3 Main actions needed to reduce (-) plastic pollution in

freshwater ecosystems. All actions are connected (?)

123 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2021

www.kva.se/en

Ambio

Chae, Y., and Y.-J. An. 2017. Effects of micro- and nanoplastics on

aquatic ecosystems: Current research trends and perspectives.

Marine Pollution Bulletin 124: 624–632.

Chae, Y., D. Kim, S.W. Kim, and Y.-J. An. 2018. Trophic transfer

and individual impact of nano-sized polystyrene in a four-

species freshwater food chain. Scientiﬁc Reports 8: 284.

Choi, J.S., Y.J. Jung, N.H. Hong, S.H. Hong, and J.-W. Park. 2018.

Toxicological effects of irregularly shaped and spherical

microplastics in a marine teleost, the sheepshead minnow

(Cyprinodon variegatus). Marine Pollution Bulletin 129:

231–240.

Coelho, P.N., M.A. Fernandez, D.A.S. Cesar, A.M.C. Ruocco, and R.

Henry. 2018. Updated distribution and range expansion of the

gastropod invader Melanoides tuberculata (Mu

¨ller, 1774) in

Brazilian waters. BioInvasions Records 7: 405–409.

Cressey, D. 2016. Bottles, bags, ropes and toothbrushes: The struggle

to track ocean plastics. Nature 536: 263–265.

Crisci-Bispo, V.L., P.C. Bispo, and C.G. Froehlich. 2004. Triplectides

larvae in empty cases of Nectopsyche (Trichoptera, Leptoceri-

dae) at Parque Estadual Intervales, Sa

˜o Paulo State, Brazil.

Revista Brasileira de Entomologia 48 (1): 133–134.

Cui, R., S.W. Kim, and Y.J. An. 2017. Polystyrene nanoplastics

inhibit reproduction and induce abnormal embryonic develop-

ment in the freshwater crustacean Daphnia galeata.Scientiﬁc

Reports 7: 1–10.

Derraik, J.G. 2002. The pollution of the marine environment by

plastic debris: A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44: 842–852.

Ding, J., S. Zhang, R.M. Razanajatovo, H. Zou, and W. Zhu. 2018.

Accumulation, tissue distribution, and biochemical effects of

polystyrene microplastics in the freshwater ﬁsh red tilapia

(Oreochromis niloticus). Environmental Pollution 238: 1–9.

¨ring, B., S. Mecke, M. Kieckbusch, M. O’Shea, and K. Kaiser.

2017. Food spectrum analysis of the Asian toad, Duttaphrynus

melanostictus (Schneider, 1799) (Anura: Bufonidae), from

Timor Island, Wallacea. Journal of Natural History 51:

607–623.

Duncan, E.M., Z.L. Botterell, A.C. Broderick, T.S. Galloway, P.K.

Lindeque, A. Nuno, and B.J. Godley. 2017. A global review of

marine turtle entanglement in anthropogenic debris: A baseline

for further action. Endangered Species Research 34: 431–448.

Ebere, E.C., V.A. Wirnkor, V.E. Ngozi, and I.S. Chukwuemeka.

2019. Macrodebris and microplastics pollution in Nigeria: First

report on abundance, distribution and composition. Environmen-

tal Analysis Health and Toxicology 34: e2019012.

Eerkes-Medrano, D., R.C. Thompson, and D.C. Aldridge. 2015.

Microplastics in freshwater systems: A review of the emerging

threats, identiﬁcation of knowledge gaps and prioritization of

research needs. Water Research 75: 63–82.

Ehlers, S.M., W. Manz, and J.H.E. Koop. 2019. Microplastics of

different characteristics are incorporated into the larval cases of

the freshwater caddisﬂy Lepidostoma basale.Aquatic Biology

28: 67–77.

Eriksen, M., L.C. Lebreton, H.S. Carson, M. Thiel, C.J. Moore, J.C.

Borerro, F. Galgani, P.G. Ryan, et al. 2014. Plastic pollution in

the world’s oceans: More than 5 trillion plastic pieces weighing

over 250,000 tons aﬂoat at sea. PLoS ONE 9: e111913.

Evans, D.H., P.M. Piermarini, and K.P. Choe. 2005. The multifunc-

tional ﬁsh gill: Dominant site of gas exchange, osmoregulation,

acid-base regulation, and excretion of nitrogenous waste.

Physiological Reviews 85: 97–177.

Faure, F., C. Demars, O. Wieser, M. Kunz, and L.F. de Alencastro.

2015. Plastic pollution in Swiss surface waters: nature and

concentrations, interaction with pollutants. Environmental

Chemistry 12: 582.

Fischer, E.K., L. Paglialonga, E. Czech, and M. Tamminga. 2016.

Microplastic pollution in lakes and lake shoreline sediments – A

case study on Lake Bolsena and Lake Chiusi (central Italy).

Environmental Pollution 213: 648–657.

Frias, J.P.G.L., P. Sobral, and A.M. Ferreira. 2010. Organic pollutants

in microplastics from two beaches of the Portuguese coast.

Marine Pollution Bulletin 60: 1988–1992.

Gasperi, J., R. Dris, T. Bonin, V. Rocher, and B. Tassin. 2014.

Assessment of ﬂoating plastic debris in surface water along the

Seine River. Environmental Pollution 195: 163–166.

Giarrizzo, T., M.C. Andrade, K. Schmid, K.O. Winemiller, M.

Ferreira, T. Pegado, D. Chelazzi, A. Cincinelli, et al. 2019.

Amazonia: the new frontier for plastic pollution. Frontiers in

Ecology and the Environment 17: 309–310.

Gil-Delgado, J.A., D. Guijarro, R.U. Gosa

´lvez, G.M. Lo

´pez-Iborra, A.

Ponz, and A. Velasco. 2017. Presence of plastic particles in

waterbirds faeces collected in Spanish lakes. Environmental

Pollution 220: 732–736.

Gonc¸alves, M., K. Schmid, M.C. Andrade, R. Andrades, T. Pegado,

and T. Giarrizzo. 2020. Are the tidal ﬂooded forests sinks for

litter in the Amazonian estuary? Marine Pollution Bulletin 161:

111732.

Guilhermino, L., L.R. Vieira, D. Ribeiro, A.S. Tavares, V. Cardoso,

A. Alves, and J.M. Almeida. 2018. Uptake and effects of the

antimicrobial ﬂorfenicol, microplastics and their mixtures on

freshwater exotic invasive bivalve Corbicula ﬂuminea.Science

of The Total Environment 622: 1131–1142.

Guterres-Pazin, M.G., F.C. Rosas, and M. Marmontel. 2012. Ingestion

of invertebrates, seeds, and plastic by the Amazonian manatee

(Trichechus inunguis) (Mammalia, Sirenia). Aquatic Mammals

38: 322–324.

Horton, A.A., C. Svendsen, R.J. Williams, D.J. Spurgeon, and E.

Lahive. 2017. Large microplastic particles in sediments of

tributaries of the River Thames, UK—Abundance, sources and

methods for effective quantiﬁcation. Marine Pollution Bulletin

114: 218–226.

Hu, L., L. Su, Y. Xue, J. Mu, J. Zhu, J. Xu, and H. Shi. 2016. Uptake,

accumulation and elimination of polystyrene microspheres in

tadpoles of Xenopus tropicalis.Chemosphere 164: 611–617.

Hurley, R.R., J.C. Woodward, and J.J. Rothwell. 2017. Ingestion of

microplastics by freshwater tubifex worms. Environmental

Science & Technology 51: 12844–12851.

Hurt, R., C.M. O’Reilly, and W.L. Perry. 2020. Microplastic

prevalence in two ﬁsh species in two US reservoirs. Limnology

and Oceanography Letters 5: 147–153.

Iriarte, V., and M. Marmontel. 2013. River Dolphin (Inia geoffrensis,

Sotalia ﬂuviatilis) mortality events attributed to artisanal

ﬁsheries in the Western Brazilian Amazon. Aquatic Mammals

39 (2): 116–124.

Jemec, A., P. Horvat, U. Kunej, M. Bele, and A. Krzan. 2016. Uptake

and effects of microplastic textile ﬁbers on freshwater crustacean

Daphnia magna.Environmental Pollution 219: 201–209.

Jin, Y., J. Xia, Z. Pan, J. Yang, W. Wang, and Z. Fu. 2018.

Polystyrene microplastics induce microbiota dysbiosis and

inﬂammation in the gut of adult zebraﬁsh. Environmental

Pollution 235: 322–329.

Jones, K.C., and P. Voogt. 1999. Persistent organic pollutants (POPs):

state of the science. Environmental Pollution 100: 209–221.

Kalc

ˇı

´kova

´, G., B. Alic

ˇ, T. Skalar, M. Bundschuh, and A.Z

ˇGotvajn.

2017a. Wastewater treatment plant efﬂuents as source of

cosmetic polyethylene microbeads to freshwater. Chemosphere

188: 25–31.

Kalc

ˇı

´kova

´, G., A. Z

ˇgajnar-Gotvajn, A. Kladnik, and A. Jemec. 2017b.

Impact of polyethylene microbeads on the ﬂoating freshwater

plant duckweed Lemna minor.Environmental Pollution 230:

1108–1115.

Khan, F.R., Y. Shashoua, A. Crawford, A. Drury, K. Sheppard, K.

Stewart, and T. Sculthorp. 2020. ‘The plastic Nile’: First

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2021

www.kva.se/en 123

Ambio

evidence of microplastic contamination in ﬁsh from the Nile

River (Cairo, Egypt). Toxics 8: 1–13.

Kirk, E.A., and N. Popattanachai. 2018. Marine plastics: Fragmen-

tation, effectiveness and legitimacy in international lawmaking.

Review of European, Comparative & International Environmen-

tal Law 27: 222–233.

Kruuk, H. 2006. Otters: Ecology, behavior, and conservation. New

York: Oxford University Press.

Kus

´mierek, N., and M. Popiołek. 2020. Microplastics in freshwater

ﬁsh from Central European lowland river (Widawa R., SW

Poland). Environmental Science and Pollution Research 27:

11438–11442.

Lebreton, L.C.M., J. Van der Zwet, J.W. Damsteeg, B. Slat, A.

Andrady, and J. Reisser. 2017. River plastic emissions to the

world’s oceans. Nature Communications 8: 15611.

Lei, L., S. Wu, S. Lu, M. Liu, Y. Song, Z. Fu, H. Shi, K.M. Raley-

Susman, et al. 2018. Microplastic particles cause intestinal

damage and other adverse effects in zebraﬁsh Danio rerio and

nematode Caenorhabditis elegans.Science of The Total Envi-

ronment 619: 1–8.

Li, J., H. Liu, and J. Paul Chen. 2018a. Microplastics in freshwater

systems: A review on occurrence, environmental effects, and

methods for microplastics detection. Water Research 137:

362–374.

Li, J., K. Zhang, and H. Zhang. 2018b. Adsorption of antibiotics on

microplastics. Environmental Pollution 237: 460–467.

Liu, Z., P. Yu, M. Cai, D. Wu, M. Zhang, Y. Huang, and Y. Zhao.

2018. Polystyrene nanoplastic exposure induces immobilization,

reproduction, and stress defense in the freshwater cladoceran

Daphnia pulex.Chemosphere 215: 74–81.

Lowrance, R., R. Todd, J. Fail, O. Hendrickson, R. Leonard, and L.

Asmussen. 1984. Riparian forests as nutrient ﬁlters in agricul-

tural watersheds. BioScience 34: 374–377.

Lusher, A., N.T. Buenaventura, D. Eidsvoll, J.E. Thrane, A. Økelsrud,

and M. Jartun. 2018. Freshwater microplastics in Norway: A ﬁrst

look at sediment, biota and historical plankton samples from

Lake Mjøsa and Lake Femunden. Norwegian Insititute for Water

Research.

Magni, S., F. Gagne

´, C. Andre

´, C.D. Torre, J. Auclair, H. Hanana,

C.C. Parenti, F. Bonasoro, and A. Binelli. 2018. Evaluation of

uptake and chronic toxicity of virgin polystyrene microbeads in

freshwater zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha (Mollusca:

Bivalvia). Science of the Total Environment 631: 778–788.

Mak, C.W., K.C.F. Yeung, and K.M. Chan. 2019. Acute toxic effects

of polyethylene microplastic on adult zebraﬁsh. Ecotoxicology

and Environmental Safety 182: 109442.

Mansur, E.F., B.D. Smith, R.M. Mowgli, and M.A.A. Diyan. 2008.

Two incidents of ﬁshing gear entanglement of Ganges River

dolphins (Platanista gangetica gangetica) in waterways of the

Sundarbans mangrove forest, Bangladesh. Aquatic Mammals 34:

362–366.

Martin, A.R., V.M.F. Silva, and D. Salmon. 2004. Riverine habitat

preferences of botos (Inia geoffrensis) and tucuxis (Sotalia ﬂuviatilis)

in the central Amazon. Marine Mammal Science 20: 189–200.

Mateos-Ca

´rdenas, A., D.T. Scott, G. Seitmaganbetova, F.N.A.M. van

Pelt, J. O’Halloran, and M.A.K. Jansen. 2019. Polyethylene

microplastics adhere to Lemna minor (L.), yet have no effects on

plant growth or feeding by Gammarus duebeni (Lillj.). Science

of the Total Environment 689: 413–421.

Merga, L.B., P.E. Redondo-Hasselerharm, P.J. Van den Brink, and

A.A. Koelmans. 2020. Distribution of microplastic and small

macroplastic particles across four ﬁsh species and sediment in an

African lake. Science of the Total Environment 741: 140527.

Moreno, P., and M. Callisto. 2006. Benthic macroinvertebrates in the

watershed of an urban reservoir in Southeastern Brazil. Hydro-

biologia 560: 311–321.

Murphy, F., and B. Quinn. 2018. The effects of microplastic on

freshwater Hydra attenuata feeding, morphology & reproduc-

tion. Environmental Pollution 234: 487–494.

Nelms, S.E., E.M. Duncan, A.C. Broderick, T.S. Galloway, M.H.

Godfrey, M. Hamann, P.K. Lindeque, and B.J. Godley. 2016.

Plastic and marine turtles: A review and call for research. ICES

Journal of Marine Science 73: 165–181.

O’Connor, J.D., S. Murphy, H.T. Lally, I. O’Connor, R. Nash, J.

O’Sullivan, M. Bruen, L. Heerey, A.A. Koelmans, A. Cullagh,

and D. Cullagh. 2020. Microplastics in brown trout (Salmo trutta

Linnaeus, 1758) from an Irish riverine system. Environmental

Pollution 267: 115572.

Okada, E.K., A.A. Agostinho, and L.C. Gomes. 2011. Spatial and

temporal gradients in artisanal ﬁsheries of a large Neotropical

reservoir, the Itaipu Reservoir, Brazil. Canadian Journal of

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62: 714–724.

Park, T.-J., S. Lee, M.-S. Lee, J.-K. Lee, S.-H. Lee, and K.-D. Zoh.

2020. Occurrence of microplastics in the Han River and riverine

ﬁsh in South Korea. Science of The Total Environment 708:

134535.

Peng, G., P. Xu, B. Zhu, M. Bai, and D. Li. 2018. Microplastics in

freshwater river sediments in Shanghai, China: A case study of

risk assessment in mega-cities. Environmental Pollution 234:

448–456.

Pierce, K.E., R.J. Harris, L.S. Larned, and M.A. Pokras. 2004.

Obstruction and starvation associated with plastic ingestion in a

Northern Gannet Morus bassanus and a Greater Shearwater

Pufﬁnus gravis.Marine Ornithology 32: 187–189.

Plastics Europe. 2020. European plastic industry market data.

Retrieved 10 April 2020, from https://www.plasticseurope.org/

en/resources/market-data.

Qiao, R., Y. Deng, S. Zhang, M.B. Wolosker, Q. Zhu, H. Ren, and Y.

Zhang. 2019. Accumulation of different shapes of microplastics

initiates intestinal injury and gut microbiota dysbiosis in the gut

of zebraﬁsh. Chemosphere 236: 124334.

Rehse, S., W. Kloas, and C. Zarﬂ. 2016. Short-term exposure with

high concentrations of pristine microplastic particles leads to

immobilisation of Daphnia magna.Chemosphere 153: 91–99.

Reynolds, C., and P.G. Ryan. 2018. Micro-plastic ingestion by

waterbirds from contamined wetlands in South Africa. Marine

Pollution Bulletin 126: 330–333.

Ribeiro-Brasil, D.R.G., N.R. Torres, A.B. Picanc¸ o, D.S. Sousa, V.S.

Ribeiro, L.S. Brasil, and L.F.A. Montag. 2020. Contamination of

stream ﬁsh by plastic waste in the Brazilian Amazon. Environ-

mental Pollution 266: 115241.

Rosenberg, D.M., and V.H. Resh. 1993. Introduction to freshwater

biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates. In Freshwater

biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates, ed. D.M. Rosen-

berg and V.H. Resh. New York: Chapman and Hall.

Ryan, P.G. 2018. Entanglement of birds in plastics and other synthetic

materials. Marine Pollution Bulletin 135: 159–164.

Sarijan, S., S. Azman, M.I.M. Said, and M.H. Lee. 2019. Ingestion of

microplastics by commercial ﬁsh in Skudai River, Malaysia.

Environment Asia 12: 75–84.

Sazima, I., and G.B. D’Angelo. 2015. Dangerous traps: Anhingas

mistake anthropogenic debris for prey ﬁsh at an urban site in

South-eastern Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 23:

380–384.

Scherer, C., R. Wolf, J. Vo

¨lker, F. Stock, N. Brennhold, G.

Reifferscheid, and M. Wagner. 2020. Toxicity of microplastics

and natural particles in the freshwater dipteran Chironomus

riparius: Same same but different? Science of the Total

Environment 711: 134604.

Schmid, K., and T. Giarrizzo. 2019. More than ﬁsh—The potential of

baited remote underwater video to assess freshwater

123 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2021

www.kva.se/en

Ambio

herpetofauna and dolphins. Proceedings of the Academy of

Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 166: 1–7.

Schuyler, Q., B.D. Hardesty, C. Wilcox, and K. Townsend. 2014.

Global analysis of anthropogenic debris ingestion by sea turtles.

Conservation Biology 28: 129–139.

Shruti, V.C., M.P. Jonathan, P.F. Rodriguez-Espinosa, and F.

Rodrı

´guez-Gonza

´lez. 2019. Microplastics in freshwater sedi-

ments of Atoyac River basin, Puebla City, Mexico. Science of

the Total Environment 654: 154–163.

Silva, V.M., and R.C. Best. 1996. Freshwater dolphin/ﬁsheries

interaction in the Central Amazon (Brazil). Amazoniana:

Limnologia et Oecologia Regionalis Systematis Fluminis Ama-

zonas 14: 165–175.

Silva, A.B., and M. Marmontel. 2009. Ingesta

˜odelixopla

´stico como

prova

´vel causa mortis de peixe-boi amazo

ˆnico (Trichechus inun-

guis Natterer, 1883). Scientiﬁc Magazine UAKARI 5: 105–112.

Slootmaekers, B., C. Catarci Carteny, C. Belpaire, S. Saverwyns, W.

Fremout, R. Blust, and L. Bervoets. 2019. Microplastic contam-

ination in gudgeons (Gobio gobio) from Flemish rivers (Bel-

gium). Environmental Pollution 244: 675–684.

Smiroldo, G., A. Balestrieri, E. Pini, and P. Tremolada. 2019. Anthro-

pogenically altered trophic webs: Alien catﬁsh and microplastics in

the diet of Eurasian otters. Mammal Research 64: 165–174.

Spirkovski, Z., D. Ilik-Boeva, D. Ritterbusch, R. Peveling, and M.

Pietrock. 2019. Ghost net removal in ancient Lake Ohrid: A pilot

study. Fisheries Research 211: 46–50.

Stankovic

´, J., D. Milos

ˇevic

´, D. Savic

´-Zdrakovic

´, G. Yalc¸in, D. Yildiz,

M. Bekliog

˘lu, and B. Jovanovic

´. 2020. Exposure to a microplas-

tic mixture is altering the life traits and is causing deformities in

the non-biting midge Chironomus riparius Meigen (1804).

Environmental Pollution 262: 114248.

Stelfox, M., J. Hudgins, and M. Sweet. 2016. A review of ghost gear

entanglement amongst marine mammals, reptiles and elasmo-

branchs. Marine Pollution Bulletin 111: 6–17.

Urbanski, B.Q., A.C. Denadai, V.M. Azevedo-Santos, and M.G.

Nogueira. 2020. First record of plastic ingestion by an important

commercial native ﬁsh (Prochilodus lineatus) in the middle

Tiete

ˆRiver basin, Southeast Brazil. Biota Neotropica 20:

e20201005.

van Weert, S., P.E. Redondo-Hasselerharm, N.J. Diepens, and A.A.

Koelmans. 2019. Effects of nanoplastics and microplastics on the

growth of sediment-rooted macrophytes. Science of The Total

Environment 654: 1040–1047.

Veron, G., B.D. Patterson, and R. Reeves. 2008. Global diversity of

mammals (Mammalia) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia 595: 607–617.

Vogt, R.C., and S.G. Guzman. 1988. Food partitioning in a

Neotropical freshwater turtle community. Copeia 1988: 37.

Wang, J., J. Peng, Z. Tan, Y. Gao, Z. Zhan, Q. Chen, and L. Cai.

2017. Microplastics in the surface sediments from the Beijiang

River littoral zone: Composition, abundance, surface textures

and interaction with heavy metals. Chemosphere 171: 248–258.

Weber, C.J., and C. Opp. 2020. Spatial patterns of mesoplastics and

coarse microplastics in ﬂoodplain soils as resulting from land use

and ﬂuvial processes. Environmental Pollution 267: 115390.

Wu, Y., P. Guo, X. Zhang, Y. Zhang, S. Xie, and J. Deng. 2019.

Effect of microplastics exposure on the photosynthesis system of

freshwater algae. Journal of Hazardous Materials 374: 219–227.

Zhang, L., Y. Xie, S. Zhong, J. Liu, Y. Qin, and P. Gao. 2020.

Microplastics in freshwater and wild ﬁshes from Lijiang River in

Guangxi, Southwest China. Science of the Total Environment

755: 142428.

Ziajahromi, S., O.A. Kumar, P.A. Neale, and F.D.L. Leusch. 2017.

Impact of microplastic beads and ﬁbers on waterﬂea (Cerio-

daphnia dubia) survival, growth, and reproduction: Implications

of single and mixture exposures. Environmental Science &

Technology 51: 13397–13406.

Ziajahromi, S., A. Kumar, P.A. Neale, and F.D.L. Leusch. 2018.

Environmentally relevant concentrations of polyethylene

microplastics negatively impact the survival, growth and emer-

gence of sediment-dwelling invertebrates. Environmental Pollu-

tion 236: 425–431.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to

jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional afﬁliations.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

Valter M. Azevedo-Santos (&) is Doctor in Biological Sciences

(Zoology) at the Sa

˜o Paulo State University (UNESP), Brazil. His

research interests include ichthyology and conservation of freshwater

biodiversity.

Address: Universidade Estadual Paulista ‘‘Ju

´lio de Mesquita Filho’’,

Botucatu, Sa

˜o Paulo, Brazil.

e-mail: valter.ecologia@gmail.com

Marcelo F. G. Brito is Associate Professor at the Universidade

Federal de Sergipe, in Sa

˜o Cristo

´va

˜o. His research interests include

ﬁsh ecology and aquatic conservation.

Address: Programa de Po

´s-Graduac¸a

˜o Em Ecologia E Conservac¸a

˜o,

Universidade Federal de Sergipe, Sa

˜o Cristo

´va

˜o, SE, Brazil.

Pedro S. Manoel is Doctor in Biological Sciences (Zoology) at the

˜o Paulo State University (UNESP), Brazil. His research interests

involve community ecology, mainly landscape effects on freshwater

ﬁsh and macroinvertebrate communities and trophic relationships.

Address: Universidade Estadual Paulista ‘‘Ju

´lio de Mesquita Filho’’,

Botucatu, Sa

˜o Paulo, Brazil.

´lia F. Perroca is Master in Biological Sciences. Her research

interests focus on ecology, morphology and reproduction of decapod

crustaceans, in marine and freshwater environments.

Address: Laborato

´rio de Biologia de Camaro

˜es Marinhos E de A

´gua

Doce (LABCAM), Universidade Estadual Paulista ‘‘Ju

´lio de Mesquita

Filho’’, Bauru, SP, Brazil.

Address: Laborato

´rio de Ecologia, Universidade Do Estado de Santa

Catarina, Laguna, SC, Brazil.

Jorge Luiz Rodrigues-Filho is adjunct Professor at the Santa Cat-

arina State University (UDESC), Laguna. His studies focus on aquatic

ecology, with special interest on the ecology of ﬁshery resources.

Address: Laborato

´rio de Ecologia, Universidade Do Estado de Santa

Catarina, Laguna, SC, Brazil.

Address: Programa de Po

´s-Graduac¸a

˜o Em Planejamento Territorial e

Desenvolvimento Socioambiental, Universidade Do Estado de Santa

Catarina, Laguna, SC, Brazil.

Lucas R. P. Paschoal is Professor at the Faculdade de Tecnologia de

Jaboticabal, Nilo De Ste

´fani. His research focuses on limnology,

biology of crustaceans and mollusks, and bioinvasions in Neotropical

reservoirs.

Address: Faculdade de Tecnologia Nilo de Ste

´fani (FATEC), Jabot-

icabal, SP, Brazil.

Geslaine R. L. Gonc¸alves is a Doctor researcher at Zoology

Department in Sa

˜o Paulo State University (UNESP), Institute of

Biosciences, Botucatu, Brazil. Her research interests focus on growth,

food habits, distribution, symbiotic relationships, reproduction,

trophic web (stable isotopic analysis with carbon and nitrogen),

microplastics and fatty acids.

Address: Universidade Estadual Paulista ‘‘Ju

´lio de Mesquita Filho’’,

Botucatu, Sa

˜o Paulo, Brazil.

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2021

www.kva.se/en 123

Ambio

Milena R. Wolf is a Post-doctoral researcher at Universidade

Estadual Paulista (Unesp). Research area: Taxonomy, reproduction

and conservation of freshwater Decapoda, with focus on endemic and

threatened species.

Address: Universidade Estadual Paulista ‘‘Ju

´lio de Mesquita Filho’’,

Botucatu, Sa

˜o Paulo, Brazil.

Martı

´n C. M. Blettler is a PhD biologist at the The National Institute

of Limnology (INALI). His research interests focus on biodiversity

and pollution of freshwater ecosystems.

Address: Instituto Nacional de Limnologı

´a (INALI; CONICET-

UNL), Santa Fe, Argentina.

Marcelo C. Andrade is a Postdoc researcher at the Federal

University of Para

´(UFPA), Bele

´m. His research interests focus on the

diversity and role of ecological specialization, and he is currently

investigating the trophic niche and isotopic analysis with emphasis on

functional shifts of communities from rivers impacted by dams.

Address: Nu

´cleo de Ecologia Aqua

´tica E Pesca da Amazo

ˆnia and

Laborato

´rio de Biologia Pesqueira E Manejo Dos Recursos Aqua

´ti-

cos, Grupo de Ecologia Aqua

´tica, Universidade Federal Do Para

´,

2651 Avenida Perimetral, Bele

´m, PA, Brazil.

Andre

´B. Nobile is a partner of Ictiolo

´gica Consultoria Ambiental,

where he works as an environmental consultant in licensing pro-

cesses, focusing on the ichthyofauna. He develops research on com-

munity structure, ichthyoplankton, reproductive biology, trophic

ecology and anthropic impacts on Neotropical freshwater ﬁshes.

Address: Ictiolo

´gica Consultoria Ambiental ME/LTDA, Botucatu, SP,

Brazil.

Felipe P. Lima is Doctor in Biological Sciences (Zoology). He is

currently a partner of Ictiolo

´gica Consultoria Ambiental, Botucatu,

and works as consultant in licensing processes, focusing on the

ichthyofauna. He develops research on community structure, ichthy-

oplankton, reproductive biology and trophic ecology of Neotropical

freshwater ﬁshes.

Address: Ictiolo

´gica Consultoria Ambiental ME/LTDA, Botucatu, SP,

Brazil.

Ana M. C. Ruocco is Doctor in Biological Sciences (Zoology). Her

research interests include freshwater ecology, limnology and aquatic

communities, mainly aquatic macroinvertebrates.

Address: Universidade Estadual Paulista ‘‘Ju

´lio de Mesquita Filho’’,

Botucatu, Sa

˜o Paulo, Brazil.

Carolina V. Silva is Professor at the Faculdade Eduvale, Avare

´. Her

research is focused on the ecology of inland aquatic environments,

particularly the biology and ecology of the macroinvertebrate com-

munity.

Address: Faculdade Eduvale de Avare

´, Avare

´, SP, Brazil.

Gilmar Perbiche-Neves is Professor at the Federal University of Sa

˜o

Carlos, Department of Hydrobiology. His main interests are limnol-

ogy, ecology, biogeography and taxonomy, especially freshwater

copepods.

Address: Laborato

´rio de Pla

ˆncton, Departamento de Hidrobiologia,

Universidade Federal de Sa

˜o Carlos, Sa

˜o Carlos, SP, Brazil.

Jorge L. Portinho is Postdoctoral researcher at Department of

Ecology, Sa

˜o Paulo State University, Rio Claro. He has investigated

the ecology of tropical shallow lakes with emphasis on dormant

propagules of aquatic plants, invertebrates and the resilience to these

aquatic ecosystems.

Address: Departamento de Ecologia, Universidade Estadual Paulista

‘‘Ju

´lio de Mesquita Filho’’, Rio Claro, SP, Brazil.

Tommaso Giarrizzo is Professor at the Federal University of Para

´,

Brazil. His research interests include freshwater and marine ecosys-

tems, and human impacts on water quality and biological integrity.

Address: Nu

´cleo de Ecologia Aqua

´tica E Pesca da Amazo

ˆnia and

Laborato

´rio de Biologia Pesqueira E Manejo Dos Recursos Aqua

´ti-

cos, Grupo de Ecologia Aqua

´tica, Universidade Federal Do Para

´,

2651 Avenida Perimetral, Bele

´m, PA, Brazil.

Marlene S. Arcifa is Senior Professor at the University of Sa

˜o Paulo,

Ribeira

˜o Preto. She is interested on limnology, microcrustaceans, ﬁsh

and ecological interactions in Neotropical ecosystems.

Address: Departamento de Biologia, Universidade de Sa

˜o Paulo,

Ribeira

˜o Preto, SP, Brazil.

Fernando M. Pelicice is Professor at the Federal University of

Tocantins (Brazil). His research interests focus on aquatic ecology

and conservation, with focus on Neotropical freshwater ﬁshes.

Address: Nu

´cleo de Estudos Ambientais, Universidade Federal Do

Tocantins, Porto Nacional, TO, Brazil.

123 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2021

www.kva.se/en

Ambio

Electronic Supplementary Material

This supplementary material has been peer reviewed

Title: Plastic pollution: A focus on freshwater biodiversity

Authors: Valter M. Azevedo-Santos, Marcelo F. G. Brito, Pedro S. Manoel, Júlia F.

Perroca, Jorge Luiz Rodrigues-Filho, Lucas R.P. Paschoal, Geslaine R. L. Gonçalves,

Milena R. Wolf, Martín C. M. Blettler, Marcelo C. Andrade, André B. Nobile, Felipe P.

Lima, Ana M. C. Ruocco, Carolina V. Silva, Gilmar Perbiche-Neves, Jorge L. Portinho,

Tommaso Giarrizzo, Marlene S. Arcifa, Fernando M. Pelicice

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL 1

Fig. S1 Plastic pollution in rural areas: (a) the release of plastic trash near the

waterbody; (b) empty bottle of pesticide

Fig. S2 Plastic bottle used for pesticide and other types of synthetic polymers floating in

a rural stream in Brazil

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL 2

Methods

Information gathered in Tables S1 to S6 were retrieved from searches on scientific

databases: Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com.br/), Orcid (https://orcid.org/),

ResearchGate (https://www.researchgate.net/), SciELO

(http://www.scielo.org/php/index.php), ISI (https://isindexing.com/isi/) and Scopus

(https://www.scopus.com/freelookup/form/author.uri). For all groups, two or three

keywords were combined (e.g., plastic + tadpole; microplastic + mammals + freshwater;

see all keywords below). We considered only scientific studies published in journals or

books (all published before 22 October 2020), excluding gray literature. The searches

were conducted using terms in three languages (i.e., Portuguese, English, and Spanish).

Keywords used for each group are listed below.

-Crustaceans: "microplastic(s)", “plastic(s)”, "freshwater", "Crustacea",

"Decapoda", "crab(s)", "Trichodactylidae", "Pseudotelphusidae", "Caridea", "shrimp(s)",

"prawn(s)", "Macrobrachium", "Palaemon", "Isopoda", "Amphipoda". For

microcrustaceans, the words were: “plastic”, “microplastic”, “plankton”, “zooplankton”,

“Cladocera”, “Copepoda”, “cladocerans”, “ingestion”, “copepod”, “microcrustacean”,

“fragment”, “feeding”, “Daphnia”.

-Other freshwater invertebrates: “Microplastic”, “ingestion”, “bivalve”,

“freshwater”, “gastropods”, “eating” “aquatic”, “Oligochaeta”, “macroinvertebrates”,

“insect”, “invertebrates”, “caddisfly”, “flatworm”, “snail”, “rotifer”. We considered only

taxa identified at the species level, in order to avoid repetitions in the list.

-Fishes: For this group, we followed Azevedo-Santos et al. (2019). We also added

the terms “freshwater”, “lake”, “river”, “inland waters”.

-Amphibians: "microplastic", “plastic”, “tadpoles” “amphibians”, “ingestion”,

“anurans”, “intake”, “freshwater”, “frog”, “toads”.

-Reptiles: "microplastic", “plastic”, “turtle” “reptiles”, “ingestion”, “alligator”,

“intake”, “freshwater”, “crocodile”.

-Birds: "freshwater birds”, "waterbirds", "plastic", "microplastic", "ingestion";

"pollution", "debris". Only freshwater species (sensu

http://www.birdlife.org/ and https://www.iucnredlist.org/) were considered. We

consulted the conservation status of each species in https://www.iucnredlist.org/.

-Mammals: “plastic”, “microplastic”, “ingestion”, “mammal”, “intake”,

“polymers”.

As we were looking for records of plastic ingestion by freshwater organisms in

natural and semi-natural environments, our survey was exhaustive considering these two

aspects only. When searches retrieved few reports, we also considered laboratorial studies

(i.e., Crustaceans, Other freshwater invertebrates, and Amphibians).

To build Table 2, we used the same methodology of Table S3. We used the same

keywords, with the addition of “gill”. In addition, we checked references found for

freshwater fishes in searches for Table S3. We considered only impacts on gill for fishes

in natural or semi-natural conditions.

Table S1 Freshwater crustaceans that ingested plastic in natural, semi-natural, or laboratorial conditions

Order

Species

Condition

References

Cladocera

Daphnia magna (Straus, 1820)

Laboratory

Rosenkranz et al. (2009); Booth et al. (2016); Jemec

et al. (2016); Ma et al. (2016); Ogonowski et al.

(2016); Rehse et al. (2016); Frydkjær et al. (2017);

Imhof et al. (2017); Rist et al. (2017); Scherer et al.

(2017); Canniff and Hoang (2018); Saavedra et al.

(2019)

Cladocera

Daphnia pulex Leydig, 1860

Laboratory

Liu et al. (2018)

Anostraca

Thamnocephalus platyurusPackard, 1877

Laboratory

Saavedra et al. (2019)

Amphipoda

Gammarus duebeni Lilljeborg, 1852

Laboratory

Mateos-Cárdenas et al. (2019)

Amphipoda

Gammarus fossarum Koch, 1836

Laboratory

Blarer and Burkhardt-Holm (2016); Straub et al.

(2017)

Amphipoda

Gammarus pulex (Linnaeus, 1758)

Laboratory

Scherer et al. (2017); Weber et al. (2018)

Amphipoda

Hyalella azteca (Saussure, 1858)

Laboratory

Au et al. (2015)

Decapoda

Paratya australiensis Kemp, 1917

Natural

Nan et al. (2020)

Decapoda

Procambarus clarkii (Girard, 1852)

Semi-natural

Lv et al. (2019)

Table S2 Other freshwater invertebrates that ingested plastic in natural or laboratorial conditions

Phylum (Class)

Species

Condition

References

Rotifera (Monogononta)

Brachionus calyciflorus Pallas, 1766

Laboratory

Saavedra et al. (2019)

Cnidaria (Hydrozoa)

Hydra attenuata Pallas, 1766

Laboratory

Murphy and Quinn (2018)

Platyhelminthes (Turbellaria)

Dugesia japonica Ichikawa & Kawakatsu, 1964

Laboratory

Gambino et al. (2020)

Annelida (Clitellata)

Lumbriculus variegatus (Müller, 1774)

Laboratory

Scherer et al. (2017)

Annelida (Clitellata)

Tubifex tubifex (Müller, 1774)

Natural

Hurley et al. (2017)

Mollusca (Gastropoda)

Lanistes varicus (Müller, 1774)

Natural

Akindele et al. (2019)

Mollusca (Gastropoda)

Melanoides tuberculata (Müller, 1774)

Natural

Akindele et al. (2019)

Mollusca (Gastropoda)

Physella acuta (Draparnaud, 1805)

Laboratory

Scherer et al. (2017)

Mollusca (Gastropoda)

Theodoxus fluviatilis (Linnaeus, 1758)

Natural

Akindele et al. (2019)

Mollusca (Bivalvia)

Corbicula fluminea (Müller, 1774)

Natural

Su et al. (2016)

Mollusca (Bivalvia)

Lasmigona costata (Rafinesque, 1820)

Natural

Wardlaw and Prosser (2020)

Arthropoda (Insecta)

Chironomus riparius Meigen, 1804

Laboratory

Scherer et al. (2017); Silva et al.

(2019)

Arthropoda (Insecta)

Chironomus tepperi Skuse, 1889

Laboratory

Ziajahromi et al. (2018)

Arthropoda (Insecta)

Culex pipiens Linnaeus, 1758

Laboratory

Al-Jaibachia et al. (2019)

Arthropoda (Insecta)

Cybister japonicus Sharp, 1873

Laboratory

Kim et al. (2018)

Arthropoda (Insecta)

Sericostoma pyrenaicum Pictet, 1865

Laboratory

López-Rojo et al. (2020)

Table S3 Freshwater fishes that ingested plastic in natural or semi-natural conditions

Species

Condition

References

Abramis brama (Linnaeus, 1758)

Natural

Roch et al. (2019)

Acnodon normani Gosline, 1951

Natural

Andrade et al. (2019)

Aequidens tetramerus (Heckel, 1840)

Natural

Ribeiro-Brasil et al. (2020)

Alburnus alburnus (Linnaeus, 1758)

Natural

Faure et al. (2015); Roch et al. (2019)

Alosa aestivalis (Mitchill, 1814)

Natural

Ryan et al. (2019)

Ameiurus natalis (Lesueur, 1819)

Natural

Phillips and Bonner (2015)

Anabas testudineus (Bloch, 1792)

Natural

Sarijan et al. (2019)

Astyanax lacustris (Lütken, 1875)

Natural

Santos et al. (2020)

Astyanax mexicanus (De Filippi, 1853)

Natural

Phillips and Bonner (2015)

Astyanax rutilus (Jenyns, 1842)

Natural

Pazos et al. (2017)

Bagrus bajad (Fabricius, 1775)

Natural

Khan et al. (2020)

Barbatula barbatula (Linnaeus, 1758)

Natural

Roch et al. (2019)

Blicca bjoerkna (Linnaeus, 1758)

Natural

Roch et al. (2019)

Bryconamericus aff. iheringi (Boulenger, 1887)

Natural

Garcia et al. (2020)

Bryconops melanurus (Bloch, 1794)

Natural

Ribeiro-Brasil et al. (2020)

Campostoma anomalum (Rafinesque, 1820)

Natural

Phillips and Bonner (2015)

Carassius auratus (Linnaeus, 1758)

Natural

Jabeen et al. (2017); Yuan et al. (2019); Merga et al.

(2020); Tien et al. (2020); Wang et al. (2020)

Carassius cuvieri Temminck & Schlegel, 1846

Natural

Park et al. (2020)

Carassius gibelio (Bloch, 1782)

Natural

Zheng et al. (2019)

Carnegiella strigata (Gnther, 1864)

Natural

Ribeiro-Brasil et al. (2020)

Carpiodes cyprinus (Lesueur, 1817)

Natural

McNeish et al. (2018)

Catostomus commersonii (Lacepède, 1803)

Natural

Campbell et al. (2017); McNeish et al. (2018)

Channa argus (Cantor, 1842)

Natural

Park et al. (2020)

Channa asiatica (Linnaeus, 1758)

Natural

Wang et al. (2020)

Channa maculata (Lacepède, 1801)

Natural

Zheng et al. (2019)

Chanodichthys dabryi (Bleeker, 1871)

Natural

Zhang et al. (2017)

Characidium aff. zebra Eigenmann, 1909

Natural

Garcia et al. (2020)

Cirrhinus molitorella (Valenciennes, 1844)

Natural

Zheng et al. (2019); Wang et al. (2020)

Clarias fuscus (Lacepède, 1803)

Natural

Wang et al. (2020)

Clarias gariepinus (Burchell, 1822)

Natural

Sarijan et al. (2019); Merga et al. (2020)

Coilia grayii Richardson, 1845

Natural

Wang et al. (2020)

Copella arnoldi (Regan, 1912)

Natural

Ribeiro-Brasil et al. (2020)

Coptodon zillii (Gervais, 1848)

Natural

Zheng et al. (2019)

Coregonus wartmanni (Bloch, 1784)

Natural

Roch et al. (2019)

Crenicichla cf. regani Ploeg, 1989

Natural

Ribeiro-Brasil et al. (2020)

Ctenopharyngodon idella (Valenciennes, 1844)

Natural

Zheng et al. (2019); Wang et al. (2020)

Culaea inconstans (Kirtland, 1840)

Natural

Campbell et al. (2017)

Culter alburnus Basilewsky, 1855

Natural

Zhang et al. (2017)

Cyclocheilichthys apogon (Valenciennes, 1842)

Natural

Sarijan et al. (2019)

Cyclocheilichthys repasson (Bleeker, 1853)

Natural

Kasamesiri and Thaimuangphol (2020)

Cyphocharax voga (Hensel, 1870)

Natural

Pazos et al. (2017)

Cyprinella lutrensis (Baird & Girard, 1853)

Natural

Phillips and Bonner (2015)

Cyprinella spiloptera (Cope, 1867)

Natural

McNeish et al. (2018)

Cyprinella venusta Girard, 1856

Natural

Phillips and Bonner (2015)

Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus, 1758

Natural

Jabeen et al. (2017); Pazos et al. (2017); Zheng et al.

(2019); Merga et al. (2020); Park et al. (2020); Wang

et al. (2020); Zhang et al. (2020)

Diplomystes cuyanus Ringuelet, 1965

Natural

Gómez et al. (2019)

Dorosoma cepedianum (Lesueur, 1818)

Natural

Phillips and Bonner (2015); Hurt et al. (2020)

Dorosoma petenense (Günther, 1867)

Natural

Phillips and Bonner (2015)

Esox lucius Linnaeus, 1758

Natural

Campbell et al. (2017); Roch et al. (2019)

Etheostoma artesiae (Hay, 1881)

Natural

Phillips and Bonner (2015)

Fundulus diaphanus (Lesueur, 1817)

Natural

McNeish et al. (2018)

Fundulus notatus (Rafinesque, 1820)

Natural

Phillips and Bonner (2015)

Gambusia affinis (Baird & Girard, 1853)

Natural

Phillips and Bonner (2015)

Gambusia holbrooki Girard, 1859

Natural

Su et al. (2019)

Gasterosteus aculeatus Linnaeus, 1758

Natural

Roch et al. (2019)

Glossogobius giuris (Hamilton, 1822)

Natural

Wang et al. (2020)

Gobio gobio (Linnaeus, 1758)

Natural

Sanchez et al. (2014); Slootmaekers et al. (2019);

Kuśmierek and Popiołek (2020)

Gymnocephalus cernua (Linnaeus, 1758)

Natural

Roch et al. (2019)

Gymnocypris przewalskii (Kessler, 1876)

Natural

Xiong et al. (2018)

Hemibagrus spilopterus Ng & Rainboth, 1999

Natural

Kasamesiri and Thaimuangphol (2020)

Hemibagrus macropterus Bleeker, 1870

Natural

Zhang et al. (2020)

Hemiculter bleekeri Warpachowski, 1888

Natural

Jabeen et al. (2017)

Hemiculter leucisculus (Basilewsky, 1855)

Natural

Li et al. (2020)

Hemigrammus unilineatus (Gill, 1858)

Natural

Ribeiro-Brasil et al. (2020)

Henicorhynchus siamensis (Sauvage, 1881)

Natural

Kasamesiri and Thaimuangphol (2020)

Herichthys cyanoguttatus Baird & Girard, 1854

Natural

Phillips and Bonner (2015)

Hoplosternum littorale (Hancock, 1828)

Natural

Silva-Cavalcanti et al. (2017); Oliveira et al. (2020)

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix (Valenciennes, 1844)

Natural

Jabeen et al. (2017); Zheng et al. (2019); Wang et al.

(2020)

Hypostomus ancistroides (Ihering, 1911)

Natural

Garcia et al. (2020)

Hypostomus cf. strigaticeps (Regan, 1908)

Natural

Garcia et al. (2020)

Hypostomus commersoni Valenciennes, 1836

Natural

Pazos et al. (2017)

Hoplias malabaricus (Bloch, 1794)

Natural

Ribeiro-Brasil et al. (2020)

Ictalurus punctatus (Rafinesque, 1818)

Natural

Phillips and Bonner (2015)

Iheringichthys labrosus (Lütken, 1874)

Natural

Santos et al. (2020)

Iguanodectes rachovii Regan, 1912

Natural

Ribeiro-Brasil et al. (2020)

Labeo chrysophekadion (Bleeker, 1849)

Natural

Kasamesiri and Thaimuangphol (2020)

Labiobarbus siamensis (Sauvage, 1881)

Natural

Kasamesiri and Thaimuangphol (2020)

Laides longibarbis (Fowler, 1934)

Natural

Kasamesiri and Thaimuangphol (2020)

Laimosemion strigatus (Regan, 1912)

Natural

Ribeiro-Brasil et al. (2020)

Lates niloticus (Linnaeus, 1758)

Natural

Biginagwa et al. (2016)

Leiognathus equulus (Forsskål, 1775)

Natural

Tien et al. (2020)

Lepomis auritus (Linnaeus, 1758)

Natural

Phillips and Bonner (2015)

Lepomis cyanellus Rafinesque, 1819

Natural

Phillips and Bonner (2015)

Lepomis humilis (Girard, 1858)

Natural

Phillips and Bonner (2015)

Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque, 1819

Natural

Phillips and Bonner (2015); Peters and Bratton

(2016); Park et al. (2020)

Lepomis megalotis (Rafinesque, 1820)

Natural

Phillips and Bonner (2015); Peters and Bratton

(2016)

Lepomis microlophus (Günther, 1859)

Natural

Phillips and Bonner (2015)

Leuciscus leuciscus (Linnaeus, 1758)

Natural

Faure et al. (2015)

Lota lota (Linnaeus, 1758)

Natural

Roch et al. (2019)

Luciopimelodus pati (Valenciennes, 1835)

Natural

Pazos et al. (2017)

Mastiglanis cf. asopos Bockmann, 1994

Natural

Ribeiro-Brasil et al. (2020)

Megalechis thoracata (Valenciennes, 1840)

Natural

Ribeiro-Brasil et al. (2020)

Megalobrama amblycephala Yih, 1955

Natural

Jabeen et al. (2017); Wang et al. (2020)

Megalobrama terminalis (Richardson, 1846)

Natural

Zheng et al. (2019)

Metynnis guaporensis Eigenmann, 1915

Natural

Andrade et al. (2019)

Micropterus salmoides (Lacepède, 1802)

Natural

Phillips and Bonner (2015); Hurt et al. (2020); Park

et al. (2020)

Micropterus sp.

Natural

McNeish et al. (2018)

Misgurnus anguillicaudatus (Cantor, 1842)

Semi-natural

Lv et al. (2019)

Monopterus albus (Zuiew, 1793)

Semi-natural

Lv et al. (2019)

Myloplus rhomboidalis (Cuvier, 1818)

Natural

Andrade et al. (2019)

Myloplus rubripinnis (Müller & Troschel, 1844)

Natural

Andrade et al. (2019)

Myloplus schomburgkii (Jardine, 1841)

Natural

Andrade et al. (2019)

Mystus bocourti (Bleeker, 1864)

Natural

Kasamesiri and Thaimuangphol (2020)

Nannacara taenia Regan, 1912

Natural

Ribeiro-Brasil et al. (2020)

Neogobius melanostomus (Pallas, 1814)

Natural

McNeish et al. (2018)

Notropis amabilis (Girard, 1856)

Natural

Phillips and Bonner (2015)

Notropis atherinoides Rafinesque, 1818

Natural

Campbell et al. (2017); McNeish et al. (2018)

Notropis hudsonius (Clinton, 1824)

Natural

McNeish et al. (2018)

Notropis sabinae Jordan & Gilbert, 1886

Natural

Phillips and Bonner (2015)

Notropis stramineus (Cope, 1865)

Natural

Phillips and Bonner (2015); McNeish et al. (2018)

Notropis volucellus (Cope, 1865)

Natural

Phillips and Bonner (2015)

Noturus gyrinus (Mitchill, 1817)

Natural

Phillips and Bonner (2015)

Odontesthes bonariensis (Valenciennes, 1835)

Natural

Pazos et al. (2017)

Oligosarcus oligolepis (Steindachner, 1867)

Natural

Pazos et al. (2017)

Oreochromis aureus (Steindachner, 1864)

Natural

Phillips and Bonner (2015)

Oreochromis mossambicus (Peters, 1852)

Natural

Sarijan et al. (2019); Wang et al. (2020)

Oreochromis niloticus (Linnaeus, 1758)

Natural

Biginagwa et al. (2016); Khan et al. (2020); Merga et

al. (2020); Tien et al. (2020)

Ossubtus xinguense Jégu, 1992

Natural

Andrade et al. (2019)

Oxyeleotris marmorata (Bleeker, 1852)

Natural

Sarijan et al. (2019)

Pangasianodon hypophthalmus (Sauvage, 1878)

Natural

Sarijan et al. (2019)

Parabramis pekinensis (Basilewsky, 1855)

Natural

Wang et al. (2020)

Parapimelodus valenciennis (Lütken, 1874)

Natural

Pazos et al. (2017)

Pennahia argentata (Houttuyn, 1782)

Natural

Wang et al. (2020)

Perca fluviatilis Linnaeus, 1758

Natural

Roch et al. (2019)

Piabarchus stramineus (Eigenmann, 1908)

Natural

Garcia et al. (2020)

Piaractus brachypomus (Cuvier, 1818)

Natural

Devi et al. (2020)

Pimelodella geryi Hoedeman, 1961

Natural

Ribeiro-Brasil et al. (2020)

Pimelodus maculatus Lacepède, 1803

Natural

Pazos et al. (2017)

Pimephales promelas Rafinesque, 1820

Natural

Campbell et al. (2017); McNeish et al. (2018)

Pimephales vigilax (Baird & Girard, 1853)

Natural

Phillips and Bonner (2015)

Poecilia reticulata Peters, 1859

Natural

Garcia et al. (2020)

Polycentrus schomburgkii Mller & Troschel, 1849

Natural

Ribeiro-Brasil et al. (2020)

Pomadasys argenteus (Forsskål, 1775)

Natural

Tien et al. (2020)

Pristobrycon cf. scapularis (Günther, 1864)

Natural

Andrade et al. (2019)

Prochilodus lineatus (Valenciennes, 1837)

Natural

Pazos et al. (2017); Blettler et al. (2019); Urbanski et

al. (2020)

Psalidodon fasciatus (Cuvier, 1819)

Natural

Garcia et al. (2020); Oliveira et al. (2020)

Psalidodon aff. paranae (Eigenmann, 1914)

Natural

Garcia et al. (2020)

Pseudoplatystoma corruscans (Spix & Agassiz, 1829)

Natural

Pazos et al. (2017)

Pseudorasbora parva (Temminck & Schlegel, 1846)

Natural

Jabeen et al. (2017)

Pterygoplichthys pardalis (Castelnau, 1855)

Natural

Tien et al. (2020)

Puntioplites proctozysron (Bleeker, 1864)

Natural

Kasamesiri and Thaimuangphol (2020)

Pygocentrus nattereri Kner, 1858

Natural

Andrade et al. (2019)

Rhamdia quelen (Quoy & Gaimard, 1824)

Natural

Garcia et al. (2020); Oliveira et al. (2020)

Rineloricaria pentamaculata Langeani & de Araujo, 1994

Natural

Garcia et al. (2020)

Rutilus rutilus (Linnaeus, 1758)

Natural

Jabeen et al. (2017); Horton et al. (2018); Roch et al.

(2019); Kuśmierek and Popiołek (2020)

Salmo trutta Linnaeus, 1758

Natural

O’Connor et al. (2020); Simmerman and Wasik

(2020)

Salvelinus fontinalis (Mitchill, 1814)

Natural

Simmerman and Wasik (2020)

Sander lucioperca (Linnaeus, 1758)

Natural

Roch et al. (2019)

Serrasalmus eigenmanni Norman, 1929

Natural

Andrade et al. (2019)

Serrasalmus manueli (Fernández-Yépez & Ramírez, 1967)

Natural

Andrade et al. (2019)

Serrasalmus rhombeus (Linnaeus, 1766)

Natural

Andrade et al. (2019)

Silurus asotus Linnaeus, 1758

Natural

Park et al. (2020)

Siniperca chuatsi (Basilewsky, 1855)

Natural

Wang et al. (2020)

Squaliobarbus curriculus (Richardson, 1846)

Natural

Zheng et al. (2019)

Squalius cephalus (Linnaeus, 1758)

Natural

Collard et al. (2018); Roch et al. (2019)

Tachysurus fulvidraco (Richardson, 1846)

Natural

Zhang et al. (2017); Wang et al. (2020); Zhang et al.

(2020)

Tachysurus ussuriensis (Dybowski, 1872)

Natural

Zhang et al. (2017)

Tachysurus vachellii (Richardson, 1846)

Natural

Zhang et al. (2017); Zhang et al. (2020)

Tometes ancylorhynchus Andrade, Jégu & Giarrizzo, 2016

Natural

Andrade et al. (2019)

Tometes kranponhah Andrade, Jégu & Giarrizzo, 2016

Natural

Andrade et al. (2019)

Table S4 Freshwater amphibians that ingested plastic in natural or laboratorial conditions

Species

Condition

Reference

Bufo bufo (Linnaeus, 1758)

Natural

Kolenda et al. (2020)

Bufo gargarizans Cantor, 1842

Natural

Hu et al. (2018)

Bufotes viridis (Laurenti, 1768)

Natural

Kolenda et al. (2020)

Duttaphrynus melanostictus (Schneider, 1799)

Natural

Döring et al. (2017)

Hyla arborea (Linnaeus, 1758)

Natural

Kolenda et al. (2020)

Microhyla ornata Boulenger, 1882

Natural

Hu et al. (2018)

Pelobates fuscus (Laurenti, 1768)

Natural

Kolenda et al. (2020)

Pelophylax esculentus (Linnaeus, 1758)

Natural

Kolenda et al. (2020)

Pelophylax nigromaculatus (Hallowell, 1861)

Natural

Hu et al. (2018)

Pelophylax ridibundus (Pallas, 1771)

Natural

Karaoglu and Gül (2020)

Physalaemus cuvieri Fitzinger, 1826

Laboratory

Araújo et al. (2019)

Rana limnocharis Gravenhorst, 1829

Natural

Hu et al. (2018)

Rana macrocnemis Boulenger, 1885

Natural

Karaoglu and Gül (2020)

Rana temporaria Linnaeus, 1758

Natural

Kolenda et al. (2020)

Rhinella icterica (Spix, 1824)

Natural

Sabagh and Carvalho-e-Silva (2008)

Triturus carnifex (Laurenti, 1768)

Natural

Iannella et al. (2020)

Xenopus laevis (Daudin, 1802)

Laboratory

De Felice et al. (2018)

Xenopus tropicalis (Gray, 1864)

Laboratory

Hu et al. (2016)

Table S5 Freshwater birds that ingested plastic in natural or semi-natural conditions and their conservation status

Species

Conservation status

Condition

References

Alcedo atthis (Linnaeus, 1758)

Least Concern

Natural

BirdLife International (2016a); Winkler et al. (2020)

Alopochen aegyptiaca (Linnaeus, 1766)

Least Concern

Natural

BirdLife International (2018a); Reynolds and Ryan (2018)

Anas acuta Linnaeus, 1758

Least Concern

Natural

BirdLife International (2019a); Holland et al. (2016)

Anas capensis Gmelin, 1789

Least Concern

Natural

BirdLife International (2016b); Reynolds and Ryan (2018)

Anas erythrorhyncha Gmelin, 1789

Least Concern

Natural

BirdLife International (2016c); Reynolds and Ryan (2018)

Anas platyrhynchos Linnaeus, 1758

Least Concern

Natural

English et al. (2015); Faure et al. (2015); Holland et al.

(2016); Gil-Delgado et al. (2017); BirdLife International

(2019b)

Anas rubripes (Brewster, 1902)

Least Concern

Natural

English et al. (2015); BirdLife International (2016d)

Anas undulata (Dubois, 1839)

Least Concern

Natural

BirdLife International (2016e); Reynolds and Ryan (2018)

Anser caerulescens (Linnaeus, 1758)

Least Concern

Natural

Holland et al. (2016); BirdLife International (2018b)

Ardea cinerea Linnaeus, 1758

Least Concern

Natural

Faure et al. (2015); BirdLife International (2019c)

Branta canadensis Linnaeus, 1758

Least Concern

Natural

Holland et al. (2016); BirdLife International (2018c)

Cygnus olor (Gmelin, 1789)

Least Concern

Natural

Faure et al. (2015); BirdLife International (2016f)

Gavia adamsii (Gray, 1859)

Near Threatened

Natural

Holland et al. (2016); BirdLife International (2018d)

Fulica atra (Linnaeus, 1758)

Least Concern

Natural

Gil-Delgado et al. (2017); BirdLife International (2019d)

Mareca americana (Gmelin, 1789)

Least Concern

Natural

BirdLife International (2016g); Holland et al. (2016)

Melanitta deglandi (Bonaparte, 1850)

Least Concern

Natural

Holland et al. (2016); BirdLife International (2018e)

Mycteria americana (Linnaeus, 1758)

Least Concern

Semi-

natural

Sazima and D’Angelo (2015); BirdLife International

(2016h)

Phalacrocorax auritus (Lesson, 1831)

Least Concern

Natural

BirdLife International (2018f); Brookson et al. (2019)

Plectropterus gambensis (Linnaeus, 1766)

Least Concern

Natural

BirdLife International (2016i); Reynolds and Ryan (2018)

Spatula smithii Hartert, 1891

Least Concern

Natural

BirdLife International (2016j); Reynolds and Ryan (2018)

Tadorna tadorna (Linnaeus, 1758)

Least Concern

Natural

Gil-Delgado et al. (2017); BirdLife International (2019e)

Table S6 Freshwater mammals that ingested plastic in natural conditions and their conservation status

Species

Conservation status

Condition

References

Lutra lutra (Linnaeus, 1758)

Near Threatened

Natural

Smiroldo et al. (2019); Roos et al. (2015)

Trichechus inunguis (Natterer, 1883)

Vulnerable

Natural

Silva and Marmontel (2009); Guterres-Pazin et al (2012);

Marmontel et al. (2016)

REFERENCES

Akindele, E.O., S.M. Ehlers, and J.H.E. Koop. 2019. First empirical study of freshwater

microplastics in West Africa using gastropods from Nigeria as bioindicators.

Limnologica 78: 125708.

Al-Jaibachia, R., R.N. Cuthbert, and A. Callaghan. 2019. Examining effects of ontogenic

microplastic transference on Culex mosquito mortality and adult weight. Science

of The Total Environment 651: 871–876.

Andrade, M.C., K.O. Winemiller, P.S. Barbosa, A. Fortunati, D. Chelazzi, A. Cincinelli,

and T. Giarrizzo. 2019. First account of plastic pollution impacting freshwater

fishes in the Amazon: Ingestion of plastic debris by piranhas and other

serrasalmids with diverse feeding habits. Environmental Pollution 244: 766–773.

Araújo, A.P.C., N.F.S. Melo, A.G. Oliveira-Junior, F.P. Rodrigues, T. Fernandes, J.E.A.

Vieira, T.L. Rocha, and G. Malafaia. 2019. How much are microplastics harmful

to the health of amphibians? A study with pristine polyethylene microplastics and

Physalaemus cuvieri. Journal of Hazardous Materials 382: 121066.

Au, S.Y., T.F. Bruce, W.C. Bridges, and S.J. Klaine. 2015. Responses of Hyalella azteca

to acute and chronic microplastic exposures. Environmental Toxicology and

Chemistry 34: 2564–2572.

Azevedo-Santos, V.M., G.R.L. Gonçalves, P.S. Manoel, M.C. Andrade, F.P. Lima, and

& F.M. Pelicice. 2019. Plastic ingestion by fish: A global assessment.

Environmental Pollution 255: 112994.

Biginagwa, F.J., B.S. Mayoma, Y. Shashoua, K. Syberg, and F.R. Khan. 2016. First

evidence of microplastics in the African Great Lakes: Recovery from Lake

Victoria Nile perch and Nile tilapia. Journal of Great Lakes Research 42: 146–

149.

BirdLife International. 2016a. Alcedo atthis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

2016: e.T22683027A89575948.

BirdLife International. 2016b. Anas capensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

2016: e.T22680145A92846056.

BirdLife International. 2016c. Anas erythrorhyncha. The IUCN Red List of Threatened

Species 2016: e.T22680290A92854310.

BirdLife International. 2016d. Anas rubripes. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

2016: e.T22680174A92848173.

BirdLife International. 2016e. Anas undulata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

2016: e.T22680221A92850226.

BirdLife International. 2016f. Cygnus olor. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

2016: e.T22679839A85946855.

BirdLife International. 2016g. Mareca americana. The IUCN Red List of Threatened

Species 2016: e.T22680163A92846924.

BirdLife International. 2016h. Mycteria americana. The IUCN Red List of Threatened

Species 2016: e.T22697648A93627312.

BirdLife International. 2016i. Plectropterus gambensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened

Species 2016: e.T22680057A92840685.

BirdLife International. 2016j. Spatula smithii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

2016: e.T22680236A92852018.

BirdLife International. 2018a. Alopochen aegyptiaca. The IUCN Red List of Threatened

Species 2018: e.T22679993A131910647.

BirdLife International. 2018b. Anser caerulescens. The IUCN Red List of Threatened

Species 2018: e.T22679896A131908897.

BirdLife International. 2018c. Branta canadensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened

Species 2018: e.T22679935A131909406.

BirdLife International. 2018d. Gavia adamsii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

2018: e.T22697847A132607949.

BirdLife International. 2018e. Melanitta deglandi. The IUCN Red List of Threatened

Species 2018: e.T22734194A132663794.

BirdLife International. 2018f. Nannopterum auritus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened

Species 2018: e.T22696776A133552919.

BirdLife International. 2019a. Anas acuta. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

2019: e.T22680301A153882797.

BirdLife International. 2019b. Anas platyrhynchos (amended version of 2017

assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019:

e.T22680186A155457360.

BirdLife International. 2019c. Ardea cinerea. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

2019: e.T22696993A154525233.

BirdLife International. 2019d. Fulica atra. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

2019: e.T22692913A154269531.

BirdLife International. 2019e. Tadorna tadorna. The IUCN Red List of Threatened

Species 2019: e.T22680024A154560262.

Blarer, P., and P. Burkhardt-Holm. 2016. Microplastics affect assimilation efficiency in

the freshwater amphipod Gammarus fossarum. Environtal Science Pollution

Research 23: 23522–23532.

Blettler, M.C., N. Garello, L. Ginon, E. Abrial, L.A. Espinola, and K.M. Wantzen. 2019.

Massive plastic pollution in a mega-river of a developing country: Sediment

deposition and ingestion by fish (Prochilodus lineatus). Environmental Pollution

255: 113348.

Booth, A.M., B.H. Hansen, M. Frezenl, H. Johnsen, and D. Altin. 2016. Uptake and

toxicity of methylmethacrylate-based nanoplastic particles in aquatic organisms.

Environmental Toxicology Chemistry 35: 1641– 1649.

Brookson, C.B., S.R. Solla, K.J. Fernie, M. Cepeda, and C.M. Rochman. 2019.

Microplastics in the diet of the nestling double-crested cormorants

(Phalacrocorax auratus), and obligate piscivore in a freshwater ecosystem.

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 76: 2156–2163.

Campbell, S.H., P.R. Williamson, and B.D. Hall. 2017. Microplastics in the

gastrointestinal tracts of fish and the water from an urban prairie creek. FACETS

2: 395–409.

Canniff, P.M., and T.C. Hoang. 2018. Microplastic ingestion by Daphnia magna and its

enhancement on algal growth. Science of the Total Environment 633: 500–507.

Collard, F., J. Gasperi, B. Gilbert, G. Eppe, S. Azimi, V. Rocher, and B. Tassin. 2018.

Anthropogenic particles in the stomach contents and liver of the freshwater fish

Squalius cephalus. Science of the Total Environment 643: 1257–1264.

De Felice, B., R. Bacchetta, N. Santo, P. Tremolada, and M. Parolini. 2018. Polystyrene

microplastics did not affect body growth and swimming activity in Xenopus laevis

tadpoles. Environmental Science and Pollution Reseacrh 25: 34644–34651.

Devi, S.S., A.V. Sreedevi, and A.B. Kumar. 2020. First report of microplastic ingestion

by the alien fish Pirapitinga (Piaractus brachypomus) in the Ramsar site

Vembanad Lake, south India. Marine Pollution Bulletin 160: 111637.

Döring, B., S. Mecke, M. Kieckbusch, M. O’Shea, and K. Kaiser. 2017. Food spectrum

analysis of the Asian toad, Duttaphrynus melanostictus (Schneider, 1799) (Anura:

Bufonidae), from Timor Island, Wallacea. Journal of Natural History 51: 607–

623.

English, M.D., G.J. Robertson, S. Avery-Gomm, D. Pirie-Hay, S. Raoul, P.C. Ryan, S.I.

Wihelm, and M.L. Mallory. 2015. Plastic and metal ingestion in three species of

coastal waterfoal wintering in Atlantic Canada. Marine Pollution Bulletin 98:

349–353.

Faure, F., C. Demars, O. Wieser, M. Kunz, and L.F. Alencastro. 2015. Plastic pollution

in Swiss surface waters: nature and concentrations, interaction with pollutants.

Environmental Chemistry 12: 582–591.

Frydkjær, C.K., N. Iversen, and P. Roslev. 2017. Ingestion and egestion of microplastics

by the cladoceran Daphnia magna: Effects of regular and irregular shaped plastic

and sorbed phenanthrene. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and

Toxicology 99: 655–661.

Garcia, T.D., A.L. Cardozo, B.A. Quirino, K.Y. Yofukuji, M.J. Ganassin, N.C. Santos,

and R. Fugi. 2020. Ingestion of microplastic by fish of different feeding habits in

urbanized and non-urbanized streams in southern Brazil. Water, Air, & Soil

Pollution 231: 1-11.

Gambino, G., A. Falleni, M. Nigro, A. Salvetti, A. Cechettini, C. Ippolito, P. Guidi, and

L. Rossi. 2020. Dynamics of interaction and effects of microplastics on planarian

tissue regeneration and cellular homeostasis. Aquatic Toxicology 218: 105354.

Gil-Delgado, J.A., D. Guijarro, R.U. Gosálvez, G.M. López-Iborra, A. Ponz, and A.

Velasco. 2017. Presence of plastic particles in waterbirds faeces collected in

Spanish lakes. Environmental Pollution 220: 732–736.

Gómez, F., A. Valenzuela, and J. Acosta. 2019. Registro de micro y mesoplásticos en el

tracto digestivo de la especie vulnerable Olivaichthys cuyanus (Siluriformes:

Diplomystidae), en el río cordillerano Los Patos, San Juan, Argentina. Multequina

28: 1–8.

Guterres-Pazin, M., F.C.W. Rosas, and M. Marmontel. 2012. Ingestion of invertebrates,

seeds, and plastic by the Amazonian Manatee (Trichechus inunguis) (Mammalia,

Sirenia). Aquatic Mammals 38: 322–324.

Holland, E.R., M.L. Mallory, and D. Shutler. 2016. Plastics and other anthropogenic

debris in freshwater birds from Canada. Science of the Total Environment 571:

251–258.

Horton, A. A., M.D. Jürgens, E. Lahive, P.M. van Bodegom, and M.G. Vijver. 2018. The

influence of exposure and physiology on microplastic ingestion by the freshwater

fish Rutilus rutilus (roach) in the River Thames, UK. Environmental Pollution

236: 188–194.

Hu, L., L. Su, Y. Xue, J. Mu, J. Zhu, J. Xu, and H. Shi. 2016. Uptake, accumulation and

elimination of polystyrene microspheres in tadpoles of Xenopus tropicalis.

Chemosphere 164: 611–617.

Hu, L., M. Chernick, D.E. Hinton, and H. Shi. 2018. Microplastics in small waterbodies

and tadpoles from Yangtze River Delta, China. Environmental Science &

Technology 52: 8885–8893.

Hurley, R.R., J.C. Woodward, and J.J. Rothwell. 2017. Ingestion of microplastics by

freshwater tubifex worms. Environmental Science & Technology 51: 12844–

12851.

Hurt, R., C.M. O'Reilly, and W.L. Perry. 2020. Microplastic prevalence in two fish

species in two US reservoirs. Limnology and Oceanography Letters 5: 147–153.

Iannella, M., G. Console, P. D’Alessandro, F. Cerasoli, C. Mantoni, F. Ruggieri, F. Di

Donato, and M. Biondi. 2020. Preliminary analysis of the diet of Triturus carnifex

and pollution in mountain karst ponds in Central Apennines. Water 12: 44.

Imhof, H.K., J. Rusek, M. Thiel, J. Wolinska, and C. Laforsch. 2017. Do microplastic

particles affect Daphnia magna at the morphological, life history and molecular

level? PLoS ONE 12: e0187590.

Jabeen, K., L. Su, J. Li, D. Yang, C. Tong, J. Mu, and H. Shi. 2017. Microplastics and

mesoplastics in fish from coastal and fresh waters of China. Environmental

Pollution 221: 141–149.

Jemec, A., P. Horvat, U. Kunej, M. Bele, and A. Kržan. 2016. Uptake and effects of

microplastic textile fibers on freshwater crustacean Daphnia magna.

Environmental Pollution 219: 201–209.

Karaoglu K, and S. Gül. 2020. Characterization of microplastic pollution in tadpoles

living in small water-bodies from Rize, the northeast of Turkey. Chemosphere

255: 126915.

Kasamesiri, P., and W. Thaimuangphol. 2020. Microplastics ingestion by freshwater fish

in the Chi river, Thailand. International Journal of GEOMATE 67: 114–119.

Khan, F.R., Y. Shashoua, A. Crawford, A. Drury, K. Sheppard, K. Stewart, and T.

Sculthorp. 2020. ‘The plastic Nile’: First evidence of microplastic contamination

in fish from the Nile River (Cairo, Egypt). Toxics 8: 1–13.

Kolenda K., N. Kuśmierek, and K. Pstrowska. 2020. Microplastic ingestion by tadpoles

of pond-breeding amphibians—first results from Central Europe (SW Poland).

Environmental Science and Pollution Research 27:33380–33384

Kim, S.W., D. Kim, Y. Chae, and Y. An. 2018. Dietary uptake, biodistribution, and

depuration of microplastics in the freshwater diving beetle Cybister japonicus:

Effects on predacious behavior. Environmental Pollution 242: 839–844.

Kuśmierek, N., and M. Popiołek. 2020. Microplastics in freshwater fish from Central

European lowland river (Widawa R., SW Poland). Environmental Science and

Pollution Research 27: 11438–1442.

Liu, Z., P. Yu, M. Cai, D. Wu, M. Zhang, Y. Huang, and Y. Zhao. 2018. Polystyrene

nanoplastic exposure induces immobilization, reproduction, and stress defense in

the freshwater cladoceran Daphnia pulex. Chemosphere 215: 74–81.

Li, B., L. Su, H. Zhang, H. Deng, Q. Chen, and H. Shi. 2020. Microplastics in fishes and

their living environments surrounding a plastic production area. Science of The

Total Environment 727: 138662.

López-Rojo, N., J. Pérez, A. Alonso, F. Correa-Araneda, and L. Boyero. 2020.

Microplastics have lethal and sublethal effects on stream invertebrates and affect

stream ecosystem functioning. Environmental Pollution 259: 13898.

Lv, W., W. Zhou, S. Lu, W. Huang, Q. Yuan, M. Tian, W. Lv, and D. He. 2019.

Microplastic pollution in rice-fish co-culture system: A report of three farmland

stations in Shanghai, China. Science of The Total Environment 652: 1209–1218.

Ma, Y., A. Huang, S. Cao, F. Sun, L. Wang, H. Guo, and R. Ji. 2016. Effects of

nanoplastics and microplastics on toxicity, bioaccumulation, and environmental

fate of phenanthrene in fresh water. Environmental Pollution 219: 166–173.

Marmontel, M., D. de Souza, and S. Kendall. 2016. Trichechus inunguis. The IUCN Red

List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T22102A43793736.

Mateos-Cárdenas, A., D.T. Scott, G. Seitmaganbetova, N.A.M. Frank, P. Van, O. John,

and A.K.J. Marcel. 2019. Polyethylene microplastics adhere to Lemna minor (L.),

yet have no effects on plant growth or feeding by Gammarus duebeni (Lillj.).

Science of The Total Environment 689: 413–421.

Mcneish, R.E., L.H. Kim, H.A. Barrett, S.A. Mason, J.J. Kelly, and T.J. Hoellein. 2018.

Microplastic in riverine fish is connected to species traits. Scientific Reports 8:

11639.

Merga, L.B., P.E. Redondo-Hasselerharm, P.J. Van den Brink, and A.A. Koelmans. 2020.

Distribution of microplastic and small macroplastic particles across four fish

species and sediment in an African lake. Science of the Total Environment 741:

140527.

Murphy, F., and B. Quinn. 2018. The effects of microplastic on freshwater Hydra

attenuata feeding, morphology & reproduction. Environmental Pollution 234:

487–494.

Nan, B., L. Su, C. Kellar, N.J. Craig, M.J. Keough, and V. Pettigrove. 2020. Identification

of microplastics in surface water and Australian freshwater shrimp Paratya

australiensis in Victoria, Australia. Environmental Pollution 259: 113865.

O’Connor, J. D., S. Murphy, H.T. Lally, I. O’Connor, R. Nash, J. O’Sullivan, M. Bruen,

L. Heerey, A.A. Koelmans, A. Cullagh, and D. Cullagh. 2020. Microplastics in

brown trout (Salmo trutta Linnaeus, 1758) from an Irish riverine system.

Environmental Pollution 267: 115572.

Ogonowski, M., C. Schür, Å. Jarsén & E. Gorokhova. 2016. The effects of natural and

anthropogenic microparticles on individual fitness in Daphnia magna. PLoS ONE

11: e0155063.

Oliveira, C.W.D.S., C.D.S. Corrêa, and W.S. Smith. 2020. Food ecology and presence of

microplastic in the stomach content of neotropical fish in an urban river of the

upper Paraná River Basin. Revista Ambiente & Água 15, e2551.

Park, T.-J., S. Lee, M.-S. Lee, J.-K. Lee, S.-H. Lee, and K.-D. Zoh. 2020. Occurrence of

microplastics in the Han River and riverine fish in South Korea. Science of The

Total Environment 708: 134535.

Pazos, R.S., T. Maiztegui, D.C. Colautti, A.H. Paracampo, and N. Gómez. 2017.

Microplastics in gut contents of coastal freshwater fish from Río de la Plata

estuary. Marine Pollution Bulletin 122: 85–90.

Peters, C.A., and S.P. Bratton. 2016. Urbanization is a major influence on microplastic

ingestion by sunfish in the Brazos River Basin, Central Texas, USA.

Environmental Pollution 210: 380–387.

Phillips, M.B., and T.H. Bonner. 2015. Occurrence and amount of microplastic ingested

by fishes in watersheds of the Gulf of Mexico. Marine Pollution Bulletin 100:

264–269.

Rehse, S., W. Kloas, and C. Zarfl. 2016. Short-term exposure with high concentrations of

pristine microplastic particles leads to immobilization of Daphnia magna.

Chemosphere 153: 91–9.

Reynolds, C., and P.G. Ryan. 2018. Micro-plastic ingestion by waterbirds from

contamined wetlands in South Africa. Marine Pollution Bulletin 126: 330–333.

Ribeiro-Brasil, D.R.G., N.R. Torres, A.B. Picanço, D.S. Sousa, V.S. Ribeiro, L.S. Brasil,

and L.F.A. Montag. 2020. Contamination of stream fish by plastic waste in the

Brazilian Amazon. Environmental Pollution 266: 115241.

Rist, S., A. Baun, and N.B. Hartmann. 2017. Ingestion of micro- and nanoplastics in

Daphnia magna - Quantification of body burdens and assessment of feeding rates

and reproduction. Environmental Pollution 228: 398–407.

Roch, S., T. Walter, L.D. Ittner, C. Friedrich, and A. Brinker. 2019. A systematic study

of the microplastic burden in freshwater fishes of south-western Germany - Are

we searching at the right scale? Science of The Total Environment 689: 1001-

1011.

Roos, A., A. Loy, P. de Silva, P. Hajkova, and B. Zemanová. 2015. Lutra lutra The IUCN

Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T12419A21935287.

Rosenkranz, P., Q. Chaudhry, V. Stone, and T.F. Fernandes. 2009. A comparison of

nanoparticle and fine particle uptake by Daphnia magna. Environmental

Toxicology Chemistry 28: 2142–2149.

Ryan, M.G., L. Watkins, and M.T. Walter. 2019. Hudson River juvenile Blueback herring

avoid ingesting microplastics. Marine Pollution Bulletin 146: 935–939.

Saavedra, J., S. Stoll, and V.I. Slaveykova. 2019. Influence of nanoplastic surface charge

on eco-corona formation, aggregation and toxicity to freshwater zooplankton.

Environmental Pollution 252: 715–722.

Sabagh, L.T., and A.M.P.T. Carvalho-e-Silva. (2008). Feeding overlap in two sympatric

species of Rhinella (Anura: Bufonidae) of the Atlantic Rain Forest. Revista

Brasileira de Zoologia 25: 247–253.

Sanchez, W., C. Bender, and J.-M. Porcher. 2014. Wild gudgeons (Gobio gobio) from

French rivers are contaminated by microplastics: Preliminary study and first

evidence. Environmental Research 128: 98–100.

Santos T., R. Bastian, J. Felden, A.M. Rauber, D.A. Reynalte-Tataje, F.T. Mello. First

record of microplastics in two freshwater fish species (Iheringhthys labrosus and

Astyanax lacustris) from the middle section of the Uruguay River, Brazil. Acta

Limnologica Brasiliensia 32: e26

Sarijan, S., S. Azman, M.I.M. Said, and M.H. Lee. 2019. Ingestion of microplastics by

commercial fish in Skudai River, Malaysia. Environment Asia 12: 75–84.

Sazima, I., and G.B. D’Angelo. 2015. Handling and intake of plastic debris by Wood

Storks at an urban site in South-eastern Brazil: possible causes and consequences.

North-western Journal of Zoology 11: 372–374.

Scherer, C., N. Brennholt, G. Reifferscheid, and M. Wagner. 2017. Feeding type and

development drive the ingestion of microplastics by freshwater invertebrates.

Scientific Reports 7: 17006.

Silva, A.B., and M. Marmontel. 2009. Ingestão de lixo plástico como provável causa

mortis de peixe-boi amazônico (Trichechus inunguis Natterer, 1883). Uakari 5:

105–112.

Silva, C.J.M., A.L.P. Silva, C. Gravato, and J.L.T. Pestana. 2019. Ingestion of small-sized

and irregularly shaped polyethylene microplastics affect Chironomus riparius

life-history traits. Science of The Total Environment 672: 862–868.

Silva-Cavalcanti, J.S., J.D.B. Silva, E.J. França, M.C.B. Araújo, and F. Gusmão. 2017.

Microplastics ingestion by a common tropical freshwater fishing resource.

Environmental Pollution 221: 218–226.

Simmerman, C.B., and J.K.C. Wasik. 2020. The effect of urban point source

contamination on microplastic levels in water and organisms in a cold‐water

stream. Limnology and Oceanography 5: 137–146.

Slootmaekers, B., C. Catarci-Carteny, C. Belpaire, S. Saverwyns, W. Fremout, R. Blust,

and L. Bervoets. 2019. Microplastic contamination in gudgeons (Gobio gobio)

from Flemish rivers (Belgium). Environmental Pollution 244: 675–684.

Smiroldo, G., A. Balestrieri, E. Pini, and P. Tremolada. 2019. Anthropogenically altered

trophic webs: alien catfish and microplastics in the diet of Eurasian otters.

Mammal Research 64: 165–174.

Straub, S., P.E. Hirsch, and P. Burkhardt-Holm. 2017. Biodegradable and petroleum-

based microplastics do not differ in their ingestion and excretion but in their

biological effects in a freshwater invertebrate Gammarus fossarum. International

Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 14: 774.

Su, L., Y. Xue, L. Li, D. Yang, P. Kolandhasamy, D. Li, and H. Shi. 2016. Microplastics

in Taihu Lake, China. Environmental Pollution 216: 711–719.

Su, L., B. Nan, K.L. Hassell, N.J. Craig and V. Pettigrove. 2019. Microplastics

biomonitoring in Australian urban wetlands using a common noxious fish

(Gambusia holbrooki). Chemosphere 228: 65–74.

Tien, C.J., Z.X. Wang, and C.S. Chen. 2020. Microplastics in water, sediment and fish

from the Fengshan River system: Relationship to aquatic factors and accumulation

of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by fish. Environmental Pollution 265:

114962.

Urbanski, B.Q., A.C. Denadai, V.M. Azevedo-Santos, and M.G. Nogueira. 2020. First

record of plastic ingestion by an important commercial native fish (Prochilodus

lineatus) in the middle Tietê River basin, Southeast Brazil. Biota Neotropica 20:

e20201005.

Wardlaw, C., & R. S. Prosser. 2020. Investigation of microplastics in freshwater mussels

(Lasmigona costata) from the Grand River watershed in Ontario, Canada. Water,

Air, & Soil Pollution 231(8). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-020-04741-5

Wang, S., C. Zhang, Z. Pan, D. Sun, A. Zhou, S. Xie, J. Wang, and J. Zou. 2020.

Microplastics in wild freshwater fish of different feeding habits from Beijiang and

Pearl River Delta regions, south China. Chemosphere 258: 127345.

Weber, A., C. Scherer, N. Brennholt, G. Reifferscheid, and M. Wagner. 2018. PET

microplastics do not negatively affect the survival, development, metabolism and

feeding activity of the freshwater invertebrate Gammarus pulex. Environmental

Pollution 234: 181–189.

Winkler, A., A. Nessi, D. Antonioli, M. Laus, N. Santo, M. Parolini, P. Tremolada. 2020.

Occurrence of microplastics in pellets from the common kingfisher (Alcedo atthis)

along the Ticino River, North Italy. Environmental Science and Pollution

Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10163-x

Xiong, X., K. Zhang, X. Chen, H. Shi, Z. Luo, and C. Wu. 2018. Sources and distribution

of microplastics in China’s largest inland lake – Qinghai Lake. Environmental

Pollution 235: 899–906.

Yuan, W., X. Liu, W. Wang, M. Di, and J. Wang. 2019. Microplastic abundance,

distribution and composition in water, sediments, and wild fish from Poyang Lake,

China. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 170: 180–187.

Zhang, K., X. Xiong, H. Hu, C. Wu, Y. Bi, Y. Wu, Y. Bi, Y. Wu, B. Zhou, P.S. Lam, and

J. Liu. 2017. Occurrence and characteristics of microplastic pollution in Xiangxi

Bay of Three Gorges Reservoir, China. Environmental Science & Technology 51:

3794–3801.

Zhang, L., Y. Xie, S. Zhong, J. Liu, Y. Qin, and P. Gao. 2020. Microplastics in freshwater

and wild fishes from Lijiang River in Guangxi, Southwest China. Science of The

Total Environment: 142428.

Zheng, K., Y. Fan, Z. Zhu, G. Chen, C. Tang, and X. Peng. 2019. Occurrence and species‐

specific distribution of plastic debris in wild freshwater fish from the Pearl River

catchment, China. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 38: 1504–1513.

Ziajahromi, S., A. Kumar, P.A. Neale, and F.D.L. Leusch. 2018. Environmentally

relevant concentrations of polyethylene microplastics negatively impact the

survival, growth and emergence of sediment-dwelling invertebrates.

Environmental Pollution 236: 425–431.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL 3

To build Table 3, we performed searches on scientific databases: Google Scholar

(https://scholar.google.com.br/), Orcid (https://orcid.org/), ResearchGate

(https://www.researchgate.net/), SciELO (http://www.scielo.org/php/index.php), ISI

(https://isindexing.com/isi/) and Scopus

(https://www.scopus.com/freelookup/form/author.uri). For each search, two or three

keywords were combined (e.g., entanglement + freshwater; or entanglement + freshwater

+ ghost nets). We used the following words: “abandoned net”, “entanglement”,

“entangled”, “fishing”, “freshwater”, “ghost gears” “ghost nets”, “inland waters”,

“plastic”, “ring”. We cross-searched references in the literature found. We considered

only scientific studies published in scientific journals or books (all published before 22

October 2020), excluding gray literature. The searches were conducted using terms in

three languages (i.e., Portuguese, English, and Spanish).

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL 4 
 
Examples of initiatives (A to G) implemented to minimize plastic pollution in some 
regions of the world. 
 
A - Proposed law 1691/2015 (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil): 
https://mail.camara.rj.gov.br/APL/Legislativos/scpro1316.nsf/249cb321f179652603257
75900523a42/477eb16481c1a40f83257eec0065c851?OpenDocument (In Portuguese). 
 
B - Kenya (Notice nº 2356): http://kenyalaw.org/kenya_gazette/gazette/notice/181293 
(In English).  
 
C - European Parliament: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-
room/20190321IPR32111/parliament-seals-ban-on-throwaway-plastics-by-2021 (In 
English).   
 
D - Ecological drainage in Brazil: 
http://www.camarasjc.sp.gov.br/noticias/5331/aprovado-na-camara-projeto-que-
implanta-bueiros-ecologicos-em-ruas-da-cidade (In Portuguese). 
 
E - Ecological drainage in Australia:  
https://thewest.com.au/news/sound-southern-telegraph/city-of-kwinana-initiative-nets-
impressive-results-ng-b88919325z (In English). 
 
F - Example of plastic remotion:  
https://www.theoceancleanup.com/technology/ (In English).  
 
G- Cassava bags:  
https://www.avanieco.com/portfolio-item/bio-cassava-bag/ (In English).  
 

Growing Cities and Shrinking Fish? Potential Urbanization Effects on Fish and Fisheries in Tropical Rivers

Chapter

Apr 2025

Urbanization may have ecological and economic effects on small-scale fisheries in tropical rivers. However, such effects remain poorly known. Our goal is to evaluate the potential effects of urban development of major cities on small-scale freshwater fisheries in the Brazilian Amazon, through literature review and by using some results of our research in Amazonian rivers. We focused on some study cases around large cities in different Amazonian regions, including Santarém (Eastern Amazon), and Manaus (Central Amazon). We discuss the positive and negative effects of the proximity to urban centers. Negative effects may include overfishing near large urban centers and its ecological consequences, such as a decrease on fish size of both individual species and the size structure of the fish community, changes on fish diversity, and declines on fish catches of small-scale fisheries. Other negative effects include anthropic impacts of deforestation and pollution, such as eutrophication, solid waste (micro-plastics) and heavy metals (mercury). Positive effects may include improved market opportunities for fishers, in the form of increased demand, besides higher proximity to consumers, which may shorten the market chain and make it more profitable. Another positive effect would be the engagement of fishers in tourism and other related activities. Finally, we suggested hypotheses to be tested and new avenues for future research.

Introduction to Plastic Waste: A Growing Global Concern

Chapter

Mar 2025

The influence of plastic pollution on both living and nonliving elements of the ecosystem has been documented for over 50 years, making it a chronic global problem. In view of our quest for sustainability (in terms of food, water, environment, and our health), it is impossible to overstate the growing worries about the short- and long-term effects of plastic matter entrainment into foods and water. As a result, some schools of thought advocate for a complete ban on plastic materials, while others suggest revisiting and continuously evaluating the plastic economy. This shows that, more than ever, a comprehensive solution to plastic pollution calls for new, creative, and efficient methods. In order to inform the recommendations that are being presented, current obstacles and challenges that are impeding efforts to mitigate plastic pollution are identified. This highlights the importance of finding sustainable solutions to plastic pollution that address both current issues and potential threats in the future.

Toxicity Impact of Polyethylene Microplastics on Biochemical Parameters and Oxidative Stress in Benni Fish (Barbus sharpeyi)

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2025
WATER AIR SOIL POLL

This study evaluated the effects of polyethylene microplastics (PE-MPs) on the biochemical and oxidative stress parameters in Benni fish (Barbus sharpeyi). Fingerlings (average weight: 10 ± 2 g, length: 6 ± 1 cm) were exposed to PE-MP concentrations of 0, 200, 400, 800, and 1600 mg/L for 21 days under controlled laboratory conditions. Biochemical analyses revealed significant increases in plasma aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activities, particularly at higher PE-MP concentrations. A significant increase was observed in albumin levels in fish plasma after exposure to 400, 800, and 1600 mg/L of PE-MPs. Cholesterol levels in fish plasma exposed to 400, 800, and 1600 mg/L of PE-MPs were significantly higher than in the control group. Elevated levels of total protein, albumin, cholesterol, triglycerides, and creatinine were also observed, with minimal changes in globulin levels. Oxidative stress markers, including superoxide dismutase (SOD), glutathione peroxidase (GPx), and catalase (CAT), were significantly increased in the hepatocytes, while total antioxidant capacity (TAC) and thiol levels decreased. Malondialdehyde (MDA) levels were significantly elevated, indicating lipid peroxidation and oxidative damage. The change in the integrated biomarker response (IBR) index was dose-dependent, and the highest IBR stress was observed at 1600 mg/L PE-MPs. Significant changes in oxidative stress biomarkers and blood biochemical parameters of Barbus sharpeyi indicated the potentially toxic effects of MPs in aquatic environments. These results provided clear evidence of the hepatotoxic, nephrotoxic, and oxidative stress effects of PE-MPs.

Remote Sensing for Monitoring Macroplastics in Rivers: A Review

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2025

Given the exponential rise in global plastic production and its significant ecological and socioeconomic impacts, monitoring macroplastics in rivers has become a central focus of water management efforts. However, standardized monitoring method-ologies are lagging behind the rate of plastic waste currently entering aquatic systems on a global scale. This translates into a shortage of spatially and temporally refined data on the macroplastic pollution circulating in inland waters. Recent advancements in remote sensing techniques, primarily satellites, UASs, fixed and handheld cameras combined with crowd-sourced data and automated macroplastic detection using machine and deep learning, offer promising opportunities for versatile monitoring solutions. Thus, this paper reviews state-of-the-art approaches and emerging methods for macroplastic identification in rivers to provide researchers with a comprehensive inventory of techniques and to encourage the scientific community to harmonize monitoring methods and define standard protocols. According to our investigation, addressing the challenges of remote sensing-based river macroplastics monitoring mandates further efforts to enhance and integrate multiple platforms with an emphasis on long-term monitoring.

Impact of plastic pollution on ecosystems: a review of adverse effects and sustainable solutions

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2025
ENVIRON MONIT ASSESS

The primary source of the growing concern regarding marine, aquatic, and land pollution is plastic products, the majority of which are made of synthetic or semi-synthetic organic compounds. These combinations include materials like coal and natural gas that are obtained through petrochemical processes. As these two types of plastic-derived products are produced and disposed of, they have a major impact on the ecosystems. According to recent figures, around 400 million tons of plastic and related products derived from plastic are produced annually, and it became double in the last two decades. Plastic pollutants are introduced into ecosystems by a variety of stakeholders at different points in their daily lives, whether intentionally or accidentally. They have become a major source of adverse effects, toxicity development in natural entities, and problems. The aquatic, marine, and land ecosystems are vital to human existence, which emphasizes how difficult it is to stop pollution from it. This review highlights the adverse impacts of plastics, plastic-based products, and micro-nanoplastics on aquatic, terrestrial, and marine ecosystems while addressing advances in biodegradable plastics, recycling innovations, plastic-degrading enzymes, and sustainable solutions to reduce environmental risks.

Computing riverine inputs of macrolitter into the Central Tyrrhenian Sea (Western Mediterranean Sea) from the Tiber River during the 1st post-pandemic year

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2025
SCI TOTAL ENVIRON

This study addresses the critical knowledge gap on riverine macroplastic inputs to marine litter, focusing on changes in waste composition in a post-pandemic context. While marine plastic pollution has been widely documented, data on floating macrolitter from urban rivers remain limited. The first comprehensive, year-round assessment of floating macrolitter at both branches of the Tiber River mouth were conducted, using the harmonized RIMMEL approach using a dedicated android App. The simultaneous monitoring conducted at two sites (TIB2 and TIB3), recorded abundance, material composition, size and common item types, revealing an estimated annual transport rate of 9 × 105 items/year from the Tiber River to the Mediterranean Sea. Specifically, the transport rate was 104 ± 87 items/h and density of 1170 ± 151 items/km2. The litter transport rate exhibited seasonal variability, with the highest peak observed in autumn and the lowest in summer. Findings reveal a post-pandemic reduction of <34 % in total macrolitter items, countered by a rise in single-use items, such as plastic cups, plastic bottles label and lids plastic stick from cotton bud and lollies, sanitary towel and condom. COVID-19-related items such as single-use face masks and gloves were also recorded. Over half of the items were under 10 cm, suggesting fragmentation before reaching the sea. This study enhances understanding of riverine litter in a big European capital, providing a post-pandemic dataset to identify pollution patterns and track the evolution of COVID-19-related waste.

Scientists’ warning on fossil fuels

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2025

The evidence is clear that fossil fuels—and the fossil fuel industry and its enablers—are driving a multitude of interlinked crises that jeopardize the breadth and stability of life on Earth. Every stage of the fossil fuel life cycle—extraction, processing, transport, and combustion or conversion to petrochemical products—emits planet-heating greenhouse gases and health-harming pollutants, in addition to causing widespread environmental degradation. We review the vast scientific evidence showing that fossil fuels and the fossil fuel industry are the root cause of the climate crisis, harm public health, worsen environmental injustice, accelerate biodiversity extinction, and fuel the petrochemical pollution crisis. Fossil fuels are responsible for millions of premature deaths, trillions of dollars in damages, and the escalating disruption of ecosystems, threatening people, wildlife, and a livable future. The fossil fuel industry has obscured and concealed this evidence through a decades-long, multi-billion-dollar disinformation campaign aimed at blocking action to phase out fossil fuels. We focus on the United States as the world’s largest oil and gas producer and dominant contributor to these fossil fuel crises. We present the science-and-justice-based solutions that already exist for governments and civil society to restrict the influence of the fossil fuel industry, stop fossil fuel expansion, phase out fossil fuel production and use, and make a rapid, just transition to clean, renewable energy and materials across the economy, while holding the fossil fuel industry accountable for its deception and damages. The necessary transition away from fossil fuels will provide innumerable societal and planetary benefits and forge a path forward to sustaining life on Earth.

Physiological responses of Lemna minor to polystyrene and polymethyl methacrylate microplastics

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2025

The feeding mode effect: influence on particle ingestion by four invertebrates from Sub-Antarctic and Antarctic waters

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2025
ENVIRON SCI POLLUT R

Microplastic (MP) pollution is a significant threat to marine environments not only due to its widespread presence but also because of the alarming emergence of ingestion records among benthic organisms. In this study, MP prevalence was assessed in the stomach of the crustaceans Lithodes santolla and Grimothea gregaria and the gastropods Nacella deaurata and N. concinna. Particles were analyzed with Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy. Overall, the analysis revealed that the particles were mainly microfibers composed of cellulose/rayon (60%), followed by MPs (30%), and undetermined not registered in the library (10%). Higher prevalence was found in marine benthic grazers compared to scavengers, with the latter showing low particle prevalence in their stomach contents. Grazers presented a significantly higher abundance per individual but a lower size of ingested particles compared to scavengers. When grouped by trophic levels, tertiary consumers presented significantly lower abundances per individual but larger sizes of the ingested particles. Pearson’s correlations showed no significant associations between particle abundance/size and species body size. The results of this study may suggest that continued MP pollution in marine environments and the associated accidental ingestion by marine organisms will alter the energy flow and organic matter availability in benthic food webs, with species that perform certain functional traits more susceptible to being affected.

Analysis of Brazilian plastic waste management in the global context and case study of the City of Vitória, Espírito Santo

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2025
ENVIRON SCI POLLUT R

Carlos Alberto Dutra Fraga Filho

This review analyses Brazil’s current stage of plastic waste management, comparing it to what is being carried out worldwide. The Brazilian National Solid Waste Policy established principles and guidelines for solid waste management. However, a decade after its implementation, the results demonstrate timid results about those expected. Brazil’s official solid waste and plastics recycling rates are around 4% and 1%, respectively, considerably behind countries with comparable economic growth levels. This work dedicates considerable attention to microplastic pollution, a worldwide concern with potential effects on water bodies, the atmosphere, soils, human health, and vegetal and animal lives. A case study on the solid waste management system in Vitória City, the capital of Espírito Santo, was developed. Besides, a portrait of the pollution in Vitória and Espírito Santo Bays in the atmosphere and mangrove areas is presented. The more critical issues found were the low adherence of the population’s city in the selective waste collection (what is reflected in the low solid waste recycling rates), plastic debris, and tiny plastic in the waters, coexisting with heavy metals and hydrocarbons—originated from industrial and anthropogenic activities; microplastics are present in the atmosphere, adding their adverse effects to those of the pollutants already existing in the air and the illegal disposal of waste and the anthropogenic activities which degrade the mangrove ecosystems. A global treaty is being discussed at the United Nations. It's expected that their definitions, initially promised by the end of 2024, will be able to eradicate plastic pollution effectivelly. Graphical Abstract

Ghost nets: A poorly known threat to Brazilian freshwater biodiversity

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2021
AN ACAD BRAS CIENC

Ghost nets constitute a serious threat to aquatic biodiversity, because they entangle animals as long as they persist in the environment. However, scientific literature in Brazil is virtually silent about this issue in inland ecosystems. Concerned with this gap, we conducted searches on YouTube BR to gather information about ghost nets in Brazilian freshwaters. Through our search, we compiled 33 independent videos showing ghost nets in different aquatic environments. In several cases, we identified entangled animals (i.e., fishes, reptiles, and birds). In this work we also provide recommendations to better understand and mitigate this problem in Brazilian freshwater ecosystems.

Microplastics in the gastrointestinal tracts of fish and the water from an urban prairie creek

Article

Full-text available

May 2017

Microplastics are defined as any plastic with a diameter ≤5 mm. Problems associated with these plastics such as contamination of both marine and freshwater environments and ingestion by aquatic organisms are of increasing concern. Our study quantifies the number of microplastics in a prairie creek immediately downstream of Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. Water samples and five species of fish were collected from sample sites upstream and downstream of a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) in the summers of 2015 and 2016. Samples were digested in either a Fe(II)/H2O2 or NaClO solution and observed under a microscope where plastics present were enumerated by colour and type. At least one microplastic was detected in 73.5% of fish and 95.6% of water samples, showing that the creek does, in fact, contain microplastics. Concentrations were higher in water from upstream sites, likely due to dilution of creek water by the release of treated effluent. The results of this study provide baseline conditions for the presence of plastics in the creek prior to a major upgrade of the WWTP scheduled for completion in 2016.

First record of microplastics in two freshwater fish species (Iheringhthys labrosus and Astyanax lacustris) from the middle section of the Uruguay River, Brazil Primeiro registro de microplástico em duas espécies de peixe (Iheringhthys labrosus e Astyanax lacustris) num trecho do Médio Rio Uruguai, Brasil

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2020

Aim The aim was to analyze the incidence of microplastics in the diet of fish in the middle Uruguay River. Methods The present work analyzed the gastrointestinal content of two species: Astyanax lacustris and Iheringichthys labrosus. Results This study provides the first evidence of synthetic materials, such as fibres and plastics in the gastrointestinal tract of fish species in the Middle Uruguay River basin. A sample of sixty-one A. lacustris and twenty-nine I. labrosus were examined to highlight the ingestion of microplastics in the middle section of the Uruguay River in Brazil. In the A. lacustris, eleven fibres and two fragments were found in their gastrointestinal contents, corresponding to 18.1% of the specimens, while in the I. labrosus, twelve fibres and one fragment were found, corresponding to 34.5% of the specimens analyzed. Blue staining was also prevalent in the occurrence of microplastics. Conclusions These data are the first record of microplastics in this zone and represent a baseline for this contamination for future studies.

Microplastics in brown trout (Salmo trutta Linnaeus, 1758) from an Irish riverine system

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2020
ENVIRON POLLUT

Rivers play an important role in the overall transport of microplastic pollution (1 μm to 5 mm), with fluvial dynamics expected to influence biotic interactions, particularly for fish. So far, there have been few assessments of microplastics in freshwater salmonids. The prevalence (i.e. percentage occurrence) and burden (i.e. abundance per fish) of microplastics were assessed in the gastrointestinal tracts (GITs) and stomach contents (SCs) of 58 brown trout Salmo trutta Linnaeus, 1758 sampled at six sites along the River Slaney catchment in south-east Ireland. Sites were divided into two classifications (high and low exposure) based on proximity to microplastic pollution sources, comprising three sites each. Analysis of biological traits (e.g. fish length) and diet was performed on the same fish to determine possible factors explaining microplastic burden. Microplastics were found in 72% of fish having been recovered from 66% of GITs (1.88 ± 1.53 MPs fish⁻¹) and 28% of SCs (1.31 ± 0.48 MPs fish⁻¹). Fibres were the dominant particle type recovered from GITs (67%) and SCs (57%) followed by fragments. No difference in median microplastic burden was observed between fish collected in high and low exposure sites. Microplastic burden was unrelated to fish fork length, while microplastic size distribution (100 ≤ 350 μm, 350 μm to ≤ 5 mm) was unrelated to S. trutta age class estimates. Furthermore, microplastic burden was not explained by dietary intake. Though further research is necessary, this study showed the presence of microplastics in wild S. trutta collected from an Irish riverine system, which could have further implications for top-level consumers that feed on the species, including humans. Further analysis is required to determine possible trophic linkages for the species, with respect to microplastics, and to assess the suitability of S. trutta for monitoring microplastics in river systems.

Ingestion of Microplastic by Fish of Different Feeding Habits in Urbanized and Non-urbanized Streams in Southern Brazil

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2020
WATER AIR SOIL POLL

Most studies that address microplastic (MP) ingestion by fish are conducted in marine environments; however, freshwater ecosystems such as rivers and streams are also important sources of these particles in coastal areas. Considering that increasing urbanization surrounding watersheds increases the sources of plastic pollution and that fish feeding behavior may influence the probability of ingestion of these particles, the aim of this study was to evaluate the ingestion of MP by fish of different feeding habits in urbanized and non-urbanized streams. The fish were captured in ten streams in Southern Brazil and the stomach contents of 294 individuals belonging to 13 species were analyzed. Individuals of ten species ingested MP of fiber type. From a generalized linear mixed model, we observed that the urbanized streams and the omnivorous habit showed a positive correlation with MP intake. Our results suggest that both types of streams present MP, but this pollutant is probably more prominent in heavily urbanized sites, which may represent important sources of MP for larger systems along the river basin. This evidences the importance of preserving riparian areas of small order streams as a means to reduce MP inputs into these ecosystems.

Occurrence of microplastics in pellets from the common kingfisher (Alcedo atthis) along the Ticino River, North Italy

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2020
ENVIRON SCI POLLUT R

Previous research has reported avian plastic ingestion in marine bird species. Yet, while research attention on plastic pollution is shifting from marine to freshwater ecosystems, very few information on plastic ingestion is available for freshwater birds. Here, we examined the presence of microplastic in regurgitated pellets of the common kingfisher (Alcedo atthis) collected along the Ticino River (North Italy). In total, 133 kingfisher’s pellets were examined between March and October 2019 from 54 transects along the river. Plastic elements were detected and identified by visual inspection followed by μ-FTIR and SEM-EDS. Overall, we found 12 (micro)plastics from at least three different polymers in 7.5% of the pellets. This study provides the first report of plastic uptake of this bird species. It highlights the importance of spectroscopic techniques in plastic monitoring studies in order to avoid misidentification of items found. Documenting the presence of plastic ingestion by top carnivores such as fish-eating birds is necessary to understand the pervasiveness and impact of (micro)plastic pollution in food webs of freshwater ecosystems.

Microplastics in freshwater and wild fishes from Lijiang River in Guangxi, Southwest China

Article

Feb 2021
SCI TOTAL ENVIRON

Microplastics (MPs) are ubiquitous contaminants of emerging concern that have gained great attention recently due to their widespread appearance in the environment and potential adverse effects on living biota. Lijiang in Guangxi in China is a world-famous place of tourist attraction and attracted thousands of visitors every year. However, little is known regarding occurrence and distribution of MPs in freshwater and wild fishes in the Lijiang River. In this study, we used stereoscopy and micro Fourier transform infrared spectrometry (μ-FTIR) methods to investigate the abundance, morphotype, size distribution, and polymer type of MPs in freshwater collected by plankton nets and bulk sampling by pumping and filtration. Results showed that abundance of MPs in freshwater with bulk sampling by pumping (67.5 ± 65.6 items/m³) was significantly higher than those using plankton nets (0.67 ± 0.41 items/m³ and 0.15 ± 0.15 items/m³ for mesh sizes of 75 μm and 300 μm, respectively). An average abundance of MPs detected in wild fishes was 0.6 ± 0.6 items/individual, of which, a majority was found in the gastrointestinal tracts. Large-sized (>0.3 mm) and colored MPs in morphotypes of flakes and fibers dominated in both freshwater and wild fishes. Polypropylene-polyethylene copolymer and polyethylene were the top two abundant polymer types of MPs in freshwater, while polyethylene terephthalate dominated in wild fishes. This study provides evidences for our better understanding of pollution status of MPs in the Lijiang River.

Are the tidal flooded forests sinks for litter in the Amazonian estuary?

Article

Oct 2020
MAR POLLUT BULL

Pollution in aquatic ecosystems is rapidly becoming one of the world's greatest ecological challenges. Given their intermediate position between terrestrial and marine environments, estuarine systems are especially vulnerable to human pollution. Amazonian estuaries have unique characteristics, such as heterogeneous landscape inter- calating tract of vegetation with sandbanks and beaches. In the present study, we provide the first qualitative and quantitative data on litter retention in an Amazonian estuary, comparing vegetated and bare substrate ar- eas. Overall, 12,003 items were recovered, with a mean±SD density and weight of 1.69±2.16 items/m2 and 78.08 ± 93.11 g/m2, respectively. Plastic was the principal material (80.97%) found. The largest number of items was found in the vegetated habitats (73.11%), indicating these areas as the most affected by plastic pollution. Our findings provide important insights for future research planning and implementation of effective public policies for conservation and management of these important ecosystems.

First report of microplastic ingestion by the alien fish Pirapitinga (Piaractus brachypomus) in the Ramsar site Vembanad Lake, south India

Article

Sep 2020
MAR POLLUT BULL

This study reports on the ingestion of microplastics by the alien fish Pirapitinga, Piaractus brachypomus (Characiformes; Serrasalmidae) that escaped Vembanad lake, the largest brackish water lake in the southwest coast of India, from the aquaculture systems during flooding. Microplastics separated from the gut of 32 out of the 123 fishes (26%) examined were identified using Attenuated Total Reflectance-Fourier Transform Infrared (ATR-FTIR), and Raman Spectroscopy. In total, 69 microplastic particles, represented by fibers, foam and fragments were recovered from the fish, with sizes ranging from 0.89 to 4.85 mm. The ATR-FTIR spectral analyses revealed the presence of polymers polyethylene and Nylon 6. The occurrence of PP, Nylon 6, PET and PBT were confirmed using Raman spectroscopy. The presence of MPs in the gut content of alien fish P. brachypomus could be a reflection of the increasing microplastics pollution in the estuaries and backwaters along the southwest coast of India.

Spatial patterns of mesoplastics and coarse microplastics in floodplain soils as resulting from land use and fluvial processes

Article

Aug 2020
ENVIRON POLLUT

Plastic, and especially microplastic, contamination of soils has become a novel research field. After the detection of microplastics in soils, spatial distribution and dynamics are still unknown. However, the potential risks associated with plastic particles in soils cannot be sufficiently assessed without knowledge about the spatial distribution of these anthropogenic materials. Based on a spatial research approach, including soil surveys, this study quantified the mesoplastic (MEP, > 5.0 mm) and coarse microplastics (CMP, 2.0–5.0 mm) content of twelve floodplain soils. At four transects in the catchment area of the Lahn river (Germany), soils down to a depth of 2 meters were examined for plastic content for the first time. MEP and CMP were detected through visual examination after sample preprocessing and ATR-FTIR analyses. Average MEP and CMP concentrations range between 2.06 kg⁻¹ (±1.55 kg⁻¹) and 1.88 kg⁻¹ (±1.49 kg⁻¹) with maximal values of 5.37 MEP kg⁻¹ to 8.59 CMP kg⁻¹. Plastic particles are heterogeneously distributed in samples. Both plastic size classes occur more frequently in topsoils than in soil layers deeper than 30 cm. The maximal depth of CMP occurrence lies between 75 and 100 cm. Most common CMP polymer type was PE-LD, followed by PP and PA. MEP and CMP particles occur frequently at near channel sides and more often on riparian strips or grassland than on farmland. Vertical distribution of CMP indicates anthropogenic relocation in topsoils and additional deep displacement through natural processes like preferential flow paths or bioturbation. By comparing sedimentation rates of the river with the maximum age of plastic particles, sedimentation as a deposition process of plastic in floodplains becomes probable. From our findings, it can be concluded that an overall widespread but spatial heterogenous contamination occurs in floodplain soils. Additionally, a complex plastic source pattern seems to appear in floodplain areas.