Pollution Has No Borders: Microplastics in Antarctica

Abstract

In recent years, microplastic pollution has become one of the major global concerns and represents a complex, multidimensional, and multisectoral reality. The considerable existing data relating to microplastic pollution in matrices such as water and soil suggests that microplastics are widespread globally, but there are several knowledge gaps regarding their actual distribution mostly in remote locations far from sources. In this review we examine current knowledge on microplastic pollution in the Antarctic continent. Antarctica, the unique continent not permanently anthropized, is the southernmost part of the planet but its geographic isolation does not protect against the harmful impact of human activities. This continent is characterized by limited internal pollution sources but high-burden external routes of contaminants and represents a unique natural laboratory to analyze how pollution can reach every part of the biosphere. This review reports the presence of microplastics in organic and inorganic matrices not only at marine level (water, sediments, benthic organisms, krill, and fish) but also in freshwater (lakes, rivers, snow, and glaciers) highlighting that microplastic contamination is endemic in the Antarctic environment. Microplastic pollution is of great environmental concern everywhere, but the characteristics of remote ecosystems suggest that they could be more sensitive to harm from this pollution.

Full text

Academic Editor: Teresa A. P.
Rocha-Santos
Received: 15 January 2025
Revised: 19 February 2025
Accepted: 28 February 2025
Published: 2 March 2025
Citation: Pellegrino, D.; La Russa, D.;
Barberio, L. Pollution Has No Borders:
Microplastics in Antarctica.
Environments 2025,12, 77.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
environments12030077
Copyright: © 2025 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license
(https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/).
Review
Pollution Has No Borders: Microplastics in Antarctica
Daniela Pellegrino * , Daniele La Russa and Laura Barberio
Department of Biology, Ecology and Earth Sciences, University of Calabria, 87036 Rende, Italy;
daniele.larussa@unical.it (D.L.R.); laura.barberio@unical.it (L.B.)
*Correspondence: danielapellegrino@unical.it
Abstract: In recent years, microplastic pollution has become one of the major global
concerns and represents a complex, multidimensional, and multisectoral reality. The
considerable existing data relating to microplastic pollution in matrices such as water and
soil suggests that microplastics are widespread globally, but there are several knowledge
gaps regarding their actual distribution mostly in remote locations far from sources. In this
review we examine current knowledge on microplastic pollution in the Antarctic continent.
Antarctica, the unique continent not permanently anthropized, is the southernmost part
of the planet but its geographic isolation does not protect against the harmful impact of
human activities. This continent is characterized by limited internal pollution sources but
high-burden external routes of contaminants and represents a unique natural laboratory
to analyze how pollution can reach every part of the biosphere. This review reports the
presence of microplastics in organic and inorganic matrices not only at marine level (water,
sediments, benthic organisms, krill, and fish) but also in freshwater (lakes, rivers, snow,
and glaciers) highlighting that microplastic contamination is endemic in the Antarctic
environment. Microplastic pollution is of great environmental concern everywhere, but
the characteristics of remote ecosystems suggest that they could be more sensitive to harm
from this pollution.
Keywords: microplastic pollution; Antarctica; remote ecosystems
1. Introduction
The 20th century can be defined as the “plastic century”; since the 1950s the production
and consumption of plastic objects has seen exponential growth, and this material has
become pervasive in every sector of human activity on a global level. Currently, the annual
global plastic production is about 300 million tons, but only about 30% of plastic material is
recycled and about 22% of plastic waste in the world is improperly disposed of and ends up
as litter. This means that every year more than 60 million tons of plastic accumulate in both
in the terrestrial and marine environment. Thousands of sources around the world dump
plastic waste into coastal waters, which then flow into the oceans where it accumulates in
huge subtropical ocean areas called gyres. These massive circular currents trap floating
plastic for decades, and these larger objects continually break up into smaller pieces.
The dispersion and accumulation of plastic materials in the environment has led to
one of the most urgent and pressing environmental problems that threaten our planet:
plastic pollution and especially pollution of their degradation products. Though plastic
polymers are particularly persistent, they are not immune to degradation (by chemical
or mechanical actions), with the formation of microparticles, called microplastics (MPs)
or nanoplastics (NPs), depending on their size. The terms currently used from a size
perspective are mesoplastics (>5000
µ
m), microplastics (50–5000
µ
m), and nanoplastics
Environments 2025,12, 77 https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12030077

Environments 2025,12, 77 2 of 12
(<50
µ
m), each with its own physical property and biological impacts [
1
]. Some MPs are
already produced with microscopic dimensions; for example, pellets or beads, and are
called “primary MPs”, even if their production in recent years has been greatly reduced
due to their high environmental contaminating power. Secondary MPs originate from
degradation of larger plastic objects and account for 69–81% of microplastics found in the
oceans. Pollution from plastic microparticles affects the air, soil, rivers, lakes, and oceans,
representing a serious threat to the environment and to all organisms [2].
All of the world’s oceans and seas are contaminated with MPs, notable quantities
of MPs have been documented in the global marine ecosystem [
3
–
5
], including the most
remote regions such as the polar areas [
6
–
8
]. In more recent years, the identification of the
magnitude of the problem has given rise to growing interest in the scientific community
and, consequently, the number of published studies on MPs pollution has significantly
increased [
9
]. The search for the term “microplastics” on one of the major academic
bibliography sites reports 13,417 results concentrated in the last 10 years (13,397 results). If
we instead search for “microplastics” AND “remote ecosystems” or “Antarctica” or “Arctic”
we find just over a hundred results. These data highlights the lesser information available
about pollution from MPs in remote areas despite it being clear that this pollution affects
every part of the planet and is potentially more dangerous in the most fragile areas.
This review evaluates current knowledge on the presence and location of MPs in
Antarctica and aims to highlight both the importance of targeted monitoring of the fragile
Antarctic ecosystem and how studies in remote areas can indicate global pollution trends.
2. Research Methodology
To analyze current knowledge on microplastic pollution in Antarctica, a narrative
review was carried out without a time limit. Bibliographic research of peer-reviewed
international articles was conducted on NCBI Pubmed and Web of Science with the fol-
lowing keywords: “microplastics”; “microplastics” and “Antarctica”; “microplastics” and
“Antarctic environments”; “microplastics” and “remote ecosystems”. Exclusively articles in
English were selected, and a first screening was based on the information available in the
title and abstract. The relevant articles were extensively analyzed individually. In addition,
the references of the selected articles were also analyzed.
3. Microplastic Pollution
The millions of tons of plastic produced every year end up largely in the sea from
where they reach every part of the planet undergoing a slow but continuous process of
degradation [
10
]. The use of the term “degradation” in the case of plastic does not indicate
chemical decomposition but fragmentation into smaller particles. The environmental condi-
tions of the sea (salinity, solar radiation, mechanical degradation) lead to the fragmentation
of plastic objects (bottles, caps, nets, pieces of polystyrene, etc.) into increasingly smaller
fragments, MPs and NPs, and this phenomenon is particularly insidious since the small
fragmentation can increase biota interaction and ingress in the food chain [11–14].
MPs have been documented in all seas and oceans, even in the most remote areas far
from human activities [
15
,
16
], and contaminate all marine habitats from surface waters
to the sedimentary layer [
17
–
21
], and even to different levels of the food chain [
22
–
24
].
MPs contamination is and will continue to increase, both due to the longevity of plastic
materials but also due to the rapid increase in plastic production, especially disposable
items, as recently demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic [
25
]. Aquatic animals can
assimilate MPs through oral ingestion, respiration, and/or skin adhesion [
26
,
27
]. Once
inside the body, these very small plastic particles can cross biological barriers and translo-
cate to other internal organs via the circulatory or lymphatic systems [
27
] where due to

Environments 2025,12, 77 3 of 12
their poor biodegradability, they accumulate in tissues as revealed in a variety of species
(fish [
28
]; crustaceans [
29
]; bivalves [
30
]; zooplankton [
31
]). MPs accumulate in organs
and tissues can cause several adverse effects on physiological processes (endocrine and
immunity alteration, energy disturbance, oxidative stress, neurotransmission dysfunc-
tion,
genotoxicity; [26,32–34])
and life cycle parameters (growth, lifespan, reproduction
rate; [
31
]). Furthermore, these small plastic fragments, in addition to having a direct harm-
ful effect on marine organisms, lead to their entry into the food chain, where they reach
humans [
35
]. Human exposure to MPs is mainly due to food pollution not only from
the consumption of marine organisms but also from plants and water [
36
]. It has been
estimated that the intake of plastic particles in the human body is 39,000–52,000 parti-
cles/person/year and although they are largely expelled through the gastrointestinal tract
and the biliary tract, they have been detected in the blood and in several organs (mostly
colon and liver but also spleen, lung, placenta, and breast milk) [36].
In addition to polymers, plastic contains many other dangerous chemical substances
(fillers, plasticizers, flame retardants, dyes, stabilizers, biocides, etc.) as well as uninten-
tionally added substances (metabolites, impurities, contaminants, etc.) [
37
]. In aquatic
environments, the long permanence of MPs involves the modification of their chemical
fingerprint; on the one hand they release their chemical constituents, but above all they
associate with environmental chemical substances such as organic compounds and metals,
and also act as vectors of microorganisms [
38
–
42
]. All small pieces of plastic marine de-
bris can act as microbe aggregating devices forming a biofilm called plastisphere, which
provides habitats for a wide range of rafting organisms and microbial communities. It has
recently been highlighted that the plastisphere is a “microbial reef”, a complete ecosystem
with primary producers, grazers, predators, and decomposers, as the community of larger
organisms found on the complex surface of a coral reef [
43
]. This new ecological niche acts
as a dangerous mobile reservoir of harmful microorganisms (animal, plant, and human
pathogens) [
44
] but could also represent an opportunity for the solution of plastic pollution
due to the biodegrading power of plastispheric microorganisms [45].
4. Microplastic Pollution in Antarctica
Antarctica is the southernmost continent on Earth and is characterized by a huge ice
sheet that covers the entire region (with a thickness of up to 4500 m) and which constitutes
90% of the planet’s fresh water reserve. The temperature varies from around 0
◦
C during the
austral summer on the coast, to approximately
−
90
◦
C in winter at an altitude of 3000 m in
inland areas. Ocean circulation around Antarctica is unique owing to the strong influence of
sea ice and ice shelves on temperature (supercooling by exposure to ice shelves) and salinity
(increased by salt that is expelled from freezing sea water during annual sea ice production).
These characteristics make the environment extremely hostile for human life; therefore,
Antarctica is the only continent not permanently anthropized and constitutes an ideal
location for environmental studies peculiarly for the almost total absence of anthropogenic
activity and sources of local pollution. However, geographical isolation does not protect
this continent from the negative impact of human activities. Various contaminants reach
Antarctica both through long-range atmospheric transport and marine transport, and
therefore it represents an excellent sensor to analyze the trends and distribution of global
pollution [46].
The Antarctic environment is essential for the planet equilibrium not only for its fresh
water reserve but also for the regulation of the global climate. Moreover, the Southern
Ocean drives the distribution of heat and oxygen in the world’s deep-sea habitats, and it
provides food for all higher marine predators. Human-induced environmental changes are
affecting remote environments at a rapid pace; in particular, global warming is inducing

Environments 2025,12, 77 4 of 12
major changes in the Antarctic environment such as drastic reduction in sea ice and the
retreat of glaciers with disintegration of the ice shelf. Direct anthropogenic impacts are
also increasing (increasing numbers of researchers and visitors), resulting in increased
environmental stressors including plastic pollution.
Regarding MPs pollution, although the available data are still relatively scarce, it is
clear that marine plastic pollution has also spread to the Southern Ocean at levels compara-
ble to those observed in the Northern Hemisphere. In addition, it should be noted that the
Antarctic environment, especially at the marine level, can influence the environmental life
cycle of plastic debris. In fact, high levels of UV rays, low temperatures, and the seasonal
formation of sea ice could favor its degradation, increasing its bioavailability. Furthermore,
the peculiar circulation of ocean currents around the Antarctic continent, with different
convergence zones, generates anomalies in the distribution and permanence of plastic
debris in the polar region. The presence of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current can create
accumulation zones which persist even for long periods with the formation of increasingly
smaller particles which can either reach the coasts or be removed from the system due to
storms, transport by the wind, rising/lowering of the sea level [47,48].
5. Microplastic Pollution in Antarctic Sea Water
In spite of its geographical isolation, the Antarctic environment has always experi-
enced environmental impacts derived from the rest of the planet but in recent years the
anthropic pressure has reached worrying levels. The most evident phenomenon has been
the acidification of the Antarctic Ocean due to the increase in atmospheric carbon diox-
ide [
49
] but, recently, the growth of marine pollution from plastic is increasingly evident.
In Antarctica, possible sources of marine plastics can be endogenous, resulting from on-site
activities of vessels and research stations, but especially exogenous, through marine or
atmospheric transport from lower latitudes. The amplitude of the phenomenon is not yet
well documented but considerable concentrations of MPs were reported in the Antarc-
tic Ocean waters, which is comparable to what was found in the Northern Hemisphere
oceans [47,48,50–52].
Studies in the Antarctic Peninsula area have found a mean concentration of macro-
and micro-plastics similar to that found in 70% of the world’s oceans [
48
]. Interestingly,
in the study by Isobe and co-workers [
47
], the highest MP concentrations were detected
south of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, suggesting that MPs in surface waters remain
trapped in the areas closest to the continent. Similarly, MPs concentrations detected in
marine sediments in areas closest to the Antarctic continent are comparable to those found
in temperate seafloors [8,16,53,54].
Cincinelli and co-workers [
52
] highlighted the presence of MPs in the sea water
of the Ross Sea coastal area (Antarctica) with a mean value of 0.10
±
0.31 particle m
3
.
Comparing data obtained with the same sampling method, these values are lower than in
temperate marine areas (South Atlantic Ocean: 0.275, range 0 and 14.1 particles m
3
[
55
];
North–East Atlantic Ocean: 2.46
±
2.43 particles m
3
[
56
]) but also in Arctic polar areas
(
0.34 ±0.31
particles m
3
[
57
]). Interestingly, significant amounts of MPs were detected in
East Antarctic fast ice (11.71 particles L
−1
) [
58
], which are levels higher than in Antarctic
surface waters [
47
,
52
], suggesting that sea ice may represent an important accumulation and
transport district for MPs. This phenomenon also occurs in the Arctic pole, MPs accumulate
and are transported by sea ice reaching in this case very high concentrations [59].
The higher concentrations observed in the proximity of research stations are linked
to the anthropogenic activity of these specific areas highlighting the relative importance
of local sources but the background levels are unquestionably due to external indirect
contamination (macroplastics that degrade in situ) or direct (MPs transported by air). It

Environments 2025,12, 77 5 of 12
has recently been highlighted that MPs can be easily transported by marine or atmospheric
transport from production areas to remote regions and the widespread transport of mi-
croplastics on air currents has been indicated as an important factor contributing to the
pollution of remote areas such as Antarctica [16].
However, the data available on MPs concentrations in the Southern Ocean waters
are fragmentary [
7
,
48
,
50
,
52
]; most of the studies focus on the Ross Sea [
52
,
53
] and the
Western Antarctic Peninsula [
16
,
48
,
60
], and this makes it difficult to fully understand
the phenomenon of MPs pollution in Antarctica. Further studies are needed to assess
which areas are vulnerable to pollution and accumulation of MPs, as well as to identify
possible sources. Identifying polluting sources is extremely difficult, especially in remote
areas. A recent interesting study by Leistenschneider and coworkers has applied a forensic
approach to discriminate between environmental and ship-induced microplastics in the
Weddell Sea (Antarctica) [
61
]. The forensic approach in environmental studies is proving
particularly useful because it combines analytical field studies with rigorous modeling
and data interpretation. Leistenschneider’s research group also recently highlighted that
the environmental impact of MPs in the particularly remote Weddell Sea is greater than
previously known [
51
]. This study focused on particles between 11 and 500
µ
m in size. The
researchers collected them by pumping water into tanks, filtering it, and then analyzing
it with infrared spectroscopy. Previous studies in the region had sampled microplastic
particles from the sea using the classic plankton net method, which has a mesh size of
about 300
µ
m. Using this alternative methodology, they found that most of the plastic
particles present were smaller than 300
µ
m, meaning they had not been recorded in previous
sampling and that pollution of the Southern Ocean is therefore much greater than what
was reported in previous studies [
51
]. Since it is known that the smaller the plastic particles,
the more toxic they are to marine biota, these data highlight the importance of obtaining a
comprehensive analysis of MPs pollution in order to assess the impacts and risks to this
unique and sensitive environment.
In addition, at the marine level, the long permanence of small plastic fragments
generates a favorable habitat for colonization by micro- and macro-organisms that form
what is called plastisphere. This phenomenon, currently the subject of numerous studies,
is associated with various potential risks both because it can alter the composition of
naturally microbial communities but also because it facilitates the dispersion of potential
pathogens. In polar environment, the analysis of plastisphere dynamics (colonization times,
types of microbial communities, bacterial abundance) suggest that although colonization
begins quickly and consistently, biomass formation is slower than in temperate oceans,
highlighting the unique environmental conditions [62].
6. Microplastic Pollution in Antarctic Organisms
Antarctic organisms have evolved in the geographic isolation of the Southern Ocean,
a clearly severe but extremely stable environment (solar radiation, temperature, salinity,
and oxygen of seawater) with no anthropogenic disturbance. The low temperatures and
seasonal food supply have meant that the development, growth, and reproduction time
of these organisms is extremely slow and this makes them extremely sensitive and poor
resistant to environmental variations. Due to their fragile balance, Antarctic communities
may be particularly sensitive to plastic pollution and the MPs widespread ingestion by
organisms throughout the Antarctic food web has already been well documented.
In Antarctica, all marine/sea-related organisms were found to be contaminated by
MPs, including zooplankton, fish, benthos, sea birds, and penguins [60,63–65].

Environments 2025,12, 77 6 of 12
The Antarctic krill, a keystone species in pelagic food webs of the Southern Ocean, has
been found to ingest MPs [
66
,
67
]. The presence of MPs has been confirmed in two species,
Euphausia superba and Salpa thompsoni, with differences in both abundance and size, likely
related to their feeding strategies. The common finding for both species is the type of MPs,
with fibers being significantly more abundant than fragments, confirming that shape affects
edibility. Furthermore, polymer identification indicated that MPs originated from both
local and distant sources [66].
Coastal marine ecosystems have been found to be contaminated by MPs both in
proximity to scientific bases and in remote areas. Macrobenthic organisms (especially
bivalves and benthic grazers) presents a high content of MPs that cannot be linked to
trophic transfer but to direct contamination [
68
]. Studies conducted near scientific bases
have highlighted that at least 50% of benthic contamination is attributable to local human
activities while the other 50% derives from global sources [69].
Given the fundamental role played by fish in the circulation of energy in the marine
ecosystem, particularly in Antarctica, these organisms are particularly interesting for
pollution monitoring [
70
]. Studies on MP pollution in Antarctic fish are rather scarce
and often with small sample sizes, but it is clear that fish are contaminated by MPs, not
only in the gastrointestinal tract, at all levels of the food chain [
63
–
65
]. MPs intake by
different Antarctic species is influenced by food selectivity and habitat characteristics, but
larger fish have been found to accumulate not only larger amounts of MPs but also larger
size [
63
,
69
,
71
–
73
]. The amount of MPs detected in Antarctic fish is comparable at the global
average level [
44
] and is equivalent to that found in benthic invertebrates of the same
area [
68
]. Also in the case of fish, fibers constitute the predominant form of MPs detected in
these organisms in all areas analyzed suggesting that this shape is preferentially ingested
at all levels of the food web [63,71].
Concerning Antarctic marine higher predators, the analysis of MPs contamination is
complex. These organisms, in addition to having different diets and feeding behaviors,
move from the Antarctic to the subantarctic areas and this influences the level of MPs
exposure. For example, studies carried out in various penguin species have demonstrated
the presence of MPs in scat at different concentrations depending both on specie and
sampling sites [
65
]. In addition, a recent study on Adélie penguins demonstrated the
presence of microplastics not only in scat but in various tissues (gastrointestinal tract, lungs,
trachea) highlighting the potential MPs bioaccumulation [
74
]. Even Antarctic top predatory
seabirds ingest plastic fragments from marine and terrestrial resources. By analysis of
Brown Skua regurgitated pellets, Ibañez and coworkers demonstrated the presence of both
MPs and macroplastics (>5 mm) [75].
Recently, MPs have also been found in the gastrointestinal tract of an Antarctic mi-
croarthropod, the collembolan Cryptopygus antarticus, which lives in the Antarctic terrestrial
environment and is a central component of the soil food chain [
76
]. These data are extremely
important as it documents the presence of plastic in Antarctic terrestrial food webs with
consequent dispersion along the entire food chain in the South Pole, with potential risks
for the entire ecosystem.
7. Microplastics Transport and Deposition
Microplastic particles that form in terrestrial and marine environments circulate in
earth’s systems and can cross through the atmosphere to settle even at great distances from
their area of origin. Although not all the mechanisms are clear yet, it is now established that
plastic particles, and, in particular, MPs, are entrained into the atmosphere through mechan-
ical processes in what is called the plastic cycle [
77
,
78
]. Atmospheric plastic deposition is
ubiquitous indeed airborne microplastics have been found worldwide [
79
], even in remote

Environments 2025,12, 77 7 of 12
environments far from anthropogenic sources (Arctic [
80
]; Tibetan Plateau [
81
]; European
alpine regions [
80
,
82
,
83
]. Data on the Southern Hemisphere are still poor but recently
significant quantities of MPs have been sampled in fresh snow in the Ross Island region of
Antarctica [
84
]. In all Antarctic snow samples collected (from the top 2 cm of the surface
in 19 sites) MPs were identified (using micro-Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy,
µ
FTIR) with an average concentration of 29.4
±
4.7 particles L
−1
, mainly polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) fibers. Even excluding local sources from research station activities,
MPs concentrations detected in fresh snow are very high, higher than those documented
in the surrounding Ross Sea sea water [
52
] and in East Antarctic sea ice [
58
]. Particularly
interesting is the data related to the Erebus Glacier Tongue, although the concentration is
the lowest detected this site is very far from all sources of local pollution, which further
confirm the atmospheric transport [84].
Recently, MPs were found in the Antarctic freshwaters of a protected area (Byers
Peninsula, Livingston Island—ASPA n. 126) [
85
]. The exogenous origin of the sampled MPs
is confirmed by their chemical composition (polyester fibers, acrylic fibers, and transparent
polytetrafluoroethylene films) different from the materials commonly used for sampling or
in the laboratory, which could have given rise to contamination. Although the concentration
is low compared to populated areas, these data are particularly relevant as the area is a
pristine international reference site and is subject to rigorous environmental protection
measures. The authors hypothesize that MPs contamination of these freshwater ecosystems
is due to long- or short-range atmospheric transport but the marine origin of this plastic
debris cannot be ruled out [
85
]. A very convincing theory is that MPs contamination of
Antarctic freshwater ecosystems is secondary to marine pollution, and that erosive action
of winds can drag MPs onto land from the sea surface and/or sea ice [
85
]. Furthermore,
Antarctic animals such as seabirds that prey at sea can also act as vectors for contamination
of the terrestrial environment and freshwaters [
85
,
86
]. Another recent study conducted
on the Antarctic Peninsula also found the presence of plastic fragments in ice surfaces of
Collins glacier (King George Island, Antarctica) [
87
] supporting the hypothesis that MPs
can be transported up to hundreds of kilometers through the atmosphere before being
deposited [88].
8. Final Remarks
Plastic pollution has now become a global environmental problem that affects even
the most remote areas of the planet. Although natural “barriers”, such as oceanic and
atmospheric circulation, protect Antarctica from lower latitude water and air masses, data
relating to the concentration of MPs detected in several organic and inorganic samples (air,
snow, terrestrial and marine organisms) highlight the presence of MPs derived from other
continents in the Antarctic environment. The ubiquity of plastic pollution is well recognized
in all areas of the Antarctic continent, including the Antarctic Specially Protected Areas,
however knowledge gaps regarding the pathways, distribution, and transport of plastics in
Antarctica still exist. Studies on MPs pollution in Antarctica have increased in recent years,
but the lack of standardized methods for MPs detection and identification hinders the
correct quantification of the problem; therefore, standardization of MPs analysis is the first
step to correctly assess the extent of pollution. Given the low anthropization, polar regions
“receive” most of the pollutants from temperate zones; therefore, it is increasingly urgent
to undertake monitoring actions in order to identify sources, distribution pathways and
environmental effects to mitigate and reduce such impacts. In addition, local management
of plastic contamination should not be overlooked since a potential impact arising from
activities of the research stations and marine activities for scientific purposes was evidenced.

Environments 2025,12, 77 8 of 12
MPs pollution is a serious emerging threat worldwide, but the characteristics of
remote ecosystems suggest that they may be more sensitive to harm from this pollution.
Antarctic organisms ingest MPs both directly and through the food chain, but little is known
about their ecotoxicological effects on biota, including biotransport, bioaccumulation and
biomagnification. It should also be noted that plastic particles are also vectors of other
contaminants, adsorbed/leached chemicals, which may have effects at both the cellular
and whole-organism levels. This is particularly important because polar organisms are
poorly adaptable to even small perturbations of their habitat.
In conclusion, to fully understand the direct and indirect impacts of plastic on this
remote polar region, it is necessary to implement and standardize monitoring strategies
in different environmental matrices and especially to clarify the potential effects on key
organisms of this unique and fragile ecosystem.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.P.; writing—original draft preparation, D.P., D.L.R. and
L.B.; writing—review and editing, D.P., D.L.R. and L.B.; supervision, D.P. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Programma Nazionale di Ricerche in Antartide (PNRA-
MUR), grant numbers PNRA18/00133 (project AntaGPS).
Data Availability Statement: No data were used for the research described in the article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Andrady, A.L. Microplastics in the Marine Environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011,62, 1596–1605. [CrossRef]
2.
Wu, P.; Huang, J.; Zheng, Y.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; He, F.; Chen, H.; Quan, G.; Yan, J.; Li, T.; et al. Environmental Occurrences, Fate,
and Impacts of Microplastics. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2019,184, 109612. [CrossRef]
3.
Shahul Hamid, F.; Bhatti, M.S.; Anuar, N.; Anuar, N.; Mohan, P.; Periathamby, A. Worldwide Distribution and Abundance of
Microplastic: How Dire Is the Situation? Waste Manag. Res. 2018,36, 873–897. [CrossRef]
4.
Suaria, G.; Achtypi, A.; Perold, V.; Lee, J.R.; Pierucci, A.; Bornman, T.G.; Aliani, S.; Ryan, P.G. Microfibers in Oceanic Surface
Waters: A Global Characterization. Sci. Adv. 2020,6, eaay8493. [CrossRef]
5.
Marrone, A.; La Russa, M.F.; Randazzo, L.; La Russa, D.; Cellini, E.; Pellegrino, D. Microplastics in the Center of Mediterranean:
Comparison of the Two Calabrian Coasts and Distribution from Coastal Areas to the Open Sea. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health
2021,18, 10712. [CrossRef]
6.
Ross, P.S.; Chastain, S.; Vassilenko, E.; Etemadifar, A.; Zimmermann, S.; Quesnel, S.A.; Eert, J.; Solomon, E.; Patankar, S.; Posacka,
A.M.; et al. Pervasive Distribution of Polyester Fibres in the Arctic Ocean Is Driven by Atlantic Inputs. Nat. Commun. 2021,12,
106. [CrossRef]
7.
Suaria, G.; Perold, V.; Lee, J.R.; Lebouard, F.; Aliani, S.; Ryan, P.G. Floating Macro- and Microplastics around the Southern Ocean:
Results from the Antarctic Circumnavigation Expedition. Environ. Int. 2020,136, 105494. [CrossRef]
8.
Waller, C.L.; Griffiths, H.J.; Waluda, C.M.; Thorpe, S.E.; Loaiza, I.; Moreno, B.; Pacherres, C.O.; Hughes, K.A. Microplastics in the
Antarctic Marine System: An Emerging Area of Research. Sci. Total Environ. 2017,598, 220–227. [CrossRef]
9.
Marrone, A.; Pellegrino, D. a Plethora of Microplastic Pollution Studies: The Need for a Forensic Approach. Detritus 2022,18,
50–57. [CrossRef]
10.
Eriksen, M.; Lebreton, L.C.M.; Carson, H.S.; Thiel, M.; Moore, C.J.; Borerro, J.C.; Galgani, F.; Ryan, P.G.; Reisser, J. Plastic Pollution
in the World’s Oceans: More than 5 Trillion Plastic Pieces Weighing over 250,000 Tons Afloat at Sea. PLoS ONE 2014,9, e111913.
[CrossRef]
11.
Wang, G.X.; Huang, D.; Ji, J.H.; Völker, C.; Wurm, F.R. Seawater-Degradable Polymers—Fighting the Marine Plastic Pollution.
Adv. Sci. 2021,8, 2001121. [CrossRef]
12.
Zhang, K.; Hamidian, A.H.; Tubi´c, A.; Zhang, Y.; Fang, J.K.H.; Wu, C.; Lam, P.K.S. Understanding Plastic Degradation and
Microplastic Formation in the Environment: A Review. Environ. Pollut. 2021,274, 116554. [CrossRef]
13.
Cai, L.; Wu, D.; Xia, J.; Shi, H.; Kim, H. Influence of Physicochemical Surface Properties on the Adhesion of Bacteria onto Four
Types of Plastics. Sci. Total Environ. 2019,671, 1101–1107. [CrossRef]
14.
Fotopoulou, K.N.; Karapanagioti, H.K. Surface Properties of Beached Plastics. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015,22, 11022–11032.
[CrossRef]

Environments 2025,12, 77 9 of 12
15.
Obbard, R.W.; Sadri, S.; Wong, Y.Q.; Khitun, A.A.; Baker, I.; Thompson, R.C. Global Warming Releases Microplastic Legacy Frozen
in Arctic Sea ice. Earth’s Futur. 2014,2, 315–320. [CrossRef]
16.
Reed, S.; Clark, M.; Thompson, R.; Hughes, K.A. Microplastics in Marine Sediments Near Rothera Research Station, Antarctica.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018,133, 460–463. [CrossRef]
17.
Zhang, D.; Liu, X.; Huang, W.; Li, J.; Wang, C.; Zhang, D.; Zhang, C. Microplastic Pollution in Deep-Sea Sediments and Organisms
of the Western Pacific Ocean. Environ. Pollut. 2020,259, 113948. [CrossRef]
18.
Graham, E.R.; Thompson, J.T. Deposit- and Suspension-Feeding Sea Cucumbers (Echinodermata) Ingest Plastic Fragments. J. Exp.
Mar. Biol. Ecol. 2009,368, 22–29. [CrossRef]
19.
Nor, N.H.M.; Obbard, J.P. Microplastics in Singapore’s Coastal Mangrove Ecosystems. Fate Impact Microplastics Mar. Ecosyst. 2017,
10, 278–283. [CrossRef]
20.
Thompson, R.C.; Olsen, Y.; Mitchell, R.P.; Davis, A.; Rowland, S.J.; John, A.W.; McGonigle, D.; Russell, A.E. Lost at Sea: Where Is
All the Plastic? Science 2004,304, 838. [CrossRef]
21.
Van Cauwenberghe, L.; Vanreusel, A.; Mees, J.; Janssen, C.R. Microplastic Pollution in Deep-Sea Sediments. Environ. Pollut. 2013,
182, 495–499. [CrossRef]
22.
Dantas, D.V.; Barletta, M.; da Costa, M.F. The Seasonal and Spatial Patterns of Ingestion of Polyfilament Nylon Fragments by
Estuarine Drums (Sciaenidae). Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2012,19, 600–606. [CrossRef]
23.
Eriksson, C.; Burton, H. Origins and Biological Accumulation of Small Plastic Particles in Fur Seals from Macquarie Island. Ambio
2003,32, 380–384. [CrossRef]
24.
Jantz, L.A.; Morishige, C.L.; Bruland, G.L.; Lepczyk, C.A. Ingestion of Plastic Marine Debris by Longnose Lancetfish (Alepisaurus
Ferox) in the North Pacific Ocean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2013,69, 97–104. [CrossRef]
25.
Wang, Q.; Zhang, C.; Li, R. Plastic Pollution Induced by the COVID-19: Environmental Challenges and Outlook. Environ. Sci.
Pollut. Res. 2023,30, 40405–40426. [CrossRef]
26.
Kholandhasamy, P.; Lei, S.; Jiana, L.; Xiaoyun, Q.; Khalida, J.; Huahong, S. Adherence of Microplastics to Soft Tissue of Mussels: A
Novel Way to Uptake Microplastics beyond Ingestion. Sci. Total Environ. 2018,610–611, 635–640. [CrossRef]
27.
Kim, J.H.; Yu, Y.B.; Choi, J.H. Toxic Effects on Bioaccumulation, Hematological Parameters, Oxidative Stress, Immune Responses
and Neurotoxicity in Fish Exposed to Microplastics: A Review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021,413, 125423. [CrossRef]
28.
Lu, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Deng, Y.; Jiang, W.; Zhao, Y.; Geng, J.; Ding, L.; Ren, H. Uptake and Accumulation of Polystyrene Microplastics
in Zebrafish (Danio Rerio) and Toxic Effects in Liver. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016,50, 4054–4060. [CrossRef]
29.
Saborowski, R.; Korez, Š.; Riesbeck, S.; Weidung, M.; Bickmeyer, U.; Gutow, L. Shrimp and Microplastics: A Case Study with the
Atlantic Ditch Shrimp Palaemon Varians. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2022,234, 113394. [CrossRef]
30.
Wang, S.; Hu, M.; Zheng, J.; Huang, W.; Shang, Y.; Kar-Hei Fang, J.; Shi, H.; Wang, Y. Ingestion of Nano/Micro Plastic Particles by
the Mussel Mytilus Coruscus Is Size Dependent. Chemosphere 2021,263, 127957. [CrossRef]
31.
Jeong, C.B.; Won, E.J.; Kang, H.M.; Lee, M.C.; Hwang, D.S.; Hwang, U.K.; Zhou, B.; Souissi, S.; Lee, S.J.; Lee, J.S. Microplastic
Size-Dependent Toxicity, Oxidative Stress Induction, and p-JNK and p-p38 Activation in the Monogonont Rotifer (Brachionus
Koreanus). Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016,50, 8849–8857. [CrossRef]
32.
Lee, K.W.; Shim, W.J.; Kwon, O.Y.; Kang, J.H. Size-Dependent Effects of Micro Polystyrene Particles in the Marine Copepod
Tigriopus Japonicus. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013,47, 11278–11283. [CrossRef]
33.
Rochman, C.M.; Kurobe, T.; Flores, I.; Teh, S.J. Early Warning Signs of Endocrine Disruption in Adult Fish from the Ingestion of
Polyethylene with and without Sorbed Chemical Pollutants from the Marine Environment. Sci. Total Environ. 2014,493, 656–661.
[CrossRef]
34.
Avio, C.G.; Gorbi, S.; Milan, M.; Benedetti, M.; Fattorini, D.; D’Errico, G.; Pauletto, M.; Bargelloni, L.; Regoli, F. Pollutants
Bioavailability and Toxicological Risk from Microplastics to Marine Mussels. Environ. Pollut. 2015,198, 211–222. [CrossRef]
35.
Alberghini, L.; Truant, A.; Santonicola, S.; Colavita, G.; Giaccone, V. Microplastics in Fish and Fishery Products and Risks for
Human Health: A Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023,20, 789. [CrossRef]
36.
Li, Y.; Tao, L.; Wang, Q.; Wang, F.; Li, G.; Song, M. Potential Health Impact of Microplastics: A Review of Environmental
Distribution, Human Exposure, and Toxic Effects. Environ. Health 2023,1, 249–257. [CrossRef]
37.
Groh, K.J.; Backhaus, T.; Carney-Almroth, B.; Geueke, B.; Inostroza, P.A.; Lennquist, A.; Leslie, H.A.; Maffini, M.; Slunge, D.;
Trasande, L.; et al. Overview of Known Plastic Packaging-Associated Chemicals and Their Hazards. Sci. Total Environ. 2019,651,
3253–3268. [CrossRef]
38. Dennis Brennecke; Bernardo Duarte; Filipa Paiva; Isabel Caçador; Joao Canning-Clode Microplastics as Vector for Heavy Metal
Contamination from the Marine Environment. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2016,178, 189–195. [CrossRef]
39.
Mato, Y.; Isobe, T.; Takada, H.; Kanehiro, H.; Ohtake, C.; Kaminuma, T. Plastic Resin Pellets as a Transport Medium for Toxic
Chemicals in the Marine Environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2001,35, 318–324. [CrossRef]

Environments 2025,12, 77 10 of 12
40.
Hirai, H.; Takada, H.; Ogata, Y.; Yamashita, R.; Mizukawa, K.; Saha, M.; Kwan, C.; Moore, C.; Gray, H.; Laursen, D.; et al. Organic
Micropollutants in Marine Plastics Debris from the Open Ocean and Remote and Urban Beaches. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011,62,
1683–1692. [CrossRef]
41.
Teuten, E.L.; Saquing, J.M.; Knappe, D.R.U.; Barlaz, M.A.; Jonsson, S.; Björn, A.; Rowland, S.J.; Thompson, R.C.; Galloway, T.S.;
Yamashita, R.; et al. Transport and Release of Chemicals from Plastics to the Environment and to Wildlife. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B
Biol. Sci. 2009,364, 2027–2045. [CrossRef]
42.
Kirstein, I.V.; Kirmizi, S.; Wichels, A.; Garin-Fernandez, A.; Erler, R.; Löder, M.; Gerdts, G. Dangerous Hitchhikers? Evidence for
Potentially Pathogenic Vibrio Spp. on Microplastic Particles. Mar. Environ. Res. 2016,120, 1–8. [CrossRef]
43. Amaral-Zettler, L.A.; Zettler, E.R.; Mincer, T.J. Ecology of the Plastisphere. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2020,18, 139–151. [CrossRef]
44. Li, C.; Gillings, M.R.; Zhang, C.; Chen, Q.; Zhu, D.; Wang, J.; Zhao, K.; Xu, Q.; Leung, P.H.; Li, X.; et al. Ecology and Risks of the
Global Plastisphere as a Newly Expanding Microbial Habitat. Innovation 2024,5, 100543. [CrossRef]
45.
Du, Y.; Liu, X.; Dong, X.; Yin, Z. A Review on Marine Plastisphere: Biodiversity, Formation, and Role in Degradation. Comput.
Struct. Biotechnol. J. 2022,20, 975–988. [CrossRef]
46.
Marrone, A.; La Russa, D.; Brunelli, E.; Santovito, G.; La Russa, M.F.; Barca, D.; Pellegrino, D. Antarctic Fish as a Global Pollution
Sensor: Metals Biomonitoring in a Twelve-Year Period. Front. Mol. Biosci. 2021,8, 794946. [CrossRef]
47.
Isobe, A.; Uchiyama-Matsumoto, K.; Uchida, K.; Tokai, T. Microplastics in the Southern Ocean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017,114,
623–626. [CrossRef]
48.
Lacerda, A.L.D.F.; Rodrigues, L.D.S.; van Sebille, E.; Rodrigues, F.L.; Ribeiro, L.; Secchi, E.R.; Kessler, F.; Proietti, M.C. Plastics in
Sea Surface Waters around the Antarctic Peninsula. Sci. Rep. 2019,9, 3977. [CrossRef]
49.
Orr, J.C.; Fabry, V.J.; Aumont, O.; Bopp, L.; Doney, S.C.; Feely, R.A.; Gnanadesikan, A.; Gruber, N.; Ishida, A.; Joos, F.; et al.
Anthropogenic Ocean Acidification over the Twenty-First Century and Its Impact on Calcifying Organisms. Nature 2005,437,
681–686. [CrossRef]
50.
Jones-Williams, K.; Galloway, T.; Cole, M.; Stowasser, G.; Waluda, C.; Manno, C. Close Encounters—Microplastic Availability to
Pelagic Amphipods in Sub-Antarctic and Antarctic Surface Waters. Environ. Int. 2020,140, 105792. [CrossRef]
51.
Leistenschneider, C.; Wu, F.; Primpke, S.; Gerdts, G.; Burkhardt-Holm, P. Unveiling High Concentrations of Small Microplastics
(11–500 Mm) in Surface Water Samples from the Southern Weddell Sea off Antarctica. Sci. Total Environ. 2024,927, 172124.
[CrossRef]
52.
Cincinelli, A.; Scopetani, C.; Chelazzi, D.; Lombardini, E.; Martellini, T.; Katsoyiannis, A.; Fossi, M.C.; Corsolini, S. Microplastic in
the Surface Waters of the Ross Sea (Antarctica): Occurrence, Distribution and Characterization by FTIR. Chemosphere 2017,175,
391–400. [CrossRef]
53.
Munari, C.; Infantini, V.; Scoponi, M.; Rastelli, E.; Corinaldesi, C.; Mistri, M. Microplastics in the Sediments of Terra Nova Bay
(Ross Sea, Antarctica). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017,122, 161–165. [CrossRef]
54.
Cunningham, E.M.; Ehlers, S.M.; Dick, J.T.A.; Sigwart, J.D.; Linse, K.; Dick, J.J.; Kiriakoulakis, K. High Abundances of Microplastic
Pollution in Deep-Sea Sediments: Evidence from Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020,54, 13661–13671.
[CrossRef]
55.
Song, Y.K.; Hong, S.H.; Jang, M.; Han, G.M.; Shim, W.J. Occurrence and Distribution of Microplastics in the Sea Surface Microlayer
in Jinhae Bay, South Korea. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2015,69, 279–287. [CrossRef]
56.
Lusher, A.L.; Burke, A.; O’Connor, I.; Officer, R. Microplastic Pollution in the Northeast Atlantic Ocean: Validated and Oppor-
tunistic Sampling. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2014,88, 325–333. [CrossRef]
57.
Lusher, A.L.; Tirelli, V.; O’Connor, I.; Officer, R. Microplastics in Arctic Polar Waters: The First Reported Values of Particles in
Surface and Sub-Surface Samples. Sci. Rep. 2015,5, 14947. [CrossRef]
58.
Kelly, A.; Lannuzel, D.; Rodemann, T.; Meiners, K.M.; Auman, H.J. Microplastic Contamination in East Antarctic Sea Ice. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 2020,154, 111130. [CrossRef]
59.
Peeken, I.; Primpke, S.; Beyer, B.; Gütermann, J.; Katlein, C.; Krumpen, T.; Bergmann, M.; Hehemann, L.; Gerdts, G. Arctic Sea Ice
Is an Important Temporal Sink and Means of Transport for Microplastic. Nat. Commun. 2018,9, 1505. [CrossRef]
60.
Absher, T.M.; Ferreira, S.L.; Kern, Y.; Ferreira, A.L.; Christo, S.W.; Ando, R.A. Incidence and Identification of Microfibers in Ocean
Waters in Admiralty Bay, Antarctica. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019,26, 292–298. [CrossRef]
61.
Leistenschneider, C.; Burkhardt-Holm, P.; Mani, T.; Primpke, S.; Taubner, H.; Gerdts, G. Microplastics in the Weddell Sea
(Antarctica): A Forensic Approach for Discrimination between Environmental and Vessel-Induced Microplastics. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 2021,55, 15900–15911. [CrossRef]
62.
Monràs-Riera, P.; Avila, C.; Ballesté, E. Plastisphere in an Antarctic Environment: A Microcosm Approach. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2024,
208, 116961. [CrossRef]
63.
Zhu, W.; Zhao, N.; Liu, W.; Guo, R.; Jin, H. Occurrence of Microplastics in Antarctic Fishes: Abundance, Size, Shape, and Polymer
Composition. Sci. Total Environ. 2023,903, 166186. [CrossRef]

Environments 2025,12, 77 11 of 12
64.
Caruso, G.; Bergami, E.; Singh, N.; Corsi, I. Plastic Occurrence, Sources, and Impacts in Antarctic Environment and Biota. Water
Biol. Secur. 2022,1, 100034. [CrossRef]
65.
Fragão, J.; Bessa, F.; Otero, V.; Barbosa, A.; Sobral, P.; Waluda, C.M.; Guímaro, H.R.; Xavier, J.C. Microplastics and Other
Anthropogenic Particles in Antarctica: Using Penguins as Biological Samplers. Sci. Total Environ. 2021,788, 147698. [CrossRef]
66.
Wilkie Johnston, L.; Bergami, E.; Rowlands, E.; Manno, C. Organic or Junk Food? Microplastic Contamination in Antarctic Krill
and Salps. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2023,10, 221421. [CrossRef]
67.
Zhu, W.; Liu, W.; Chen, Y.; Liao, K.; Yu, W.; Jin, H. Microplastics in Antarctic Krill (Euphausia Superba) from Antarctic Region. Sci.
Total Environ. 2023,870, 161880. [CrossRef]
68.
Sfriso, A.A.; Tomio, Y.; Rosso, B.; Gambaro, A.; Sfriso, A.; Corami, F.; Rastelli, E.; Corinaldesi, C.; Mistri, M.; Munari, C.
Microplastic Accumulation in Benthic Invertebrates in Terra Nova Bay (Ross Sea, Antarctica). Environ. Int. 2020,137, 105587.
[CrossRef]
69.
Fang, C.; Zheng, R.; Zhang, Y.; Hong, F.; Mu, J.; Chen, M.; Song, P.; Lin, L.; Lin, H.; Le, F.; et al. Microplastic Contamination in
Benthic Organisms from the Arctic and Sub-Arctic Regions. Chemosphere 2018,209, 298–306. [CrossRef]
70.
Barrera-Oro, E. The Role of Fish in the Antarctic Marine Food Web: Differences between Inshore and Offshore Waters in the
Southern Scotia Arc and West Antarctic Peninsula. Antarct. Sci. 2002,14, 293–309. [CrossRef]
71.
Zhang, M.; Liu, S.; Bo, J.; Zheng, R.; Hong, F.; Gao, F.; Miao, X.; Li, H.; Fang, C. First Evidence of Microplastic Contamination in
Antarctic Fish (Actinopterygii, Perciformes). Water 2022,14, 3070. [CrossRef]
72.
Hossain, M.S.; Rahman, M.S.; Uddin, M.N.; Sharifuzzaman, S.M.; Chowdhury, S.R.; Sarker, S.; Nawaz Chowdhury, M.S.
Microplastic Contamination in Penaeid Shrimp from the Northern Bay of Bengal. Chemosphere 2020,238, 124688. [CrossRef]
73.
Desforges, J.P.W.; Galbraith, M.; Ross, P.S. Ingestion of Microplastics by Zooplankton in the Northeast Pacific Ocean. Arch.
Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2015,69, 320–330. [CrossRef]
74.
Bhattacharjee, S.; Rathore, C.; Naik, A.; Saha, M.; Tudu, P.; Dastidar, P.G.; Bhattacharyya, S.; de Boer, J.; Chaudhuri, P. Do
Microplastics Accumulate in Penguin Internal Organs? Evidence from Svenner Island, Antarctica. Sci. Total Environ. 2024,951,
175361. [CrossRef]
75.
Ibañez, A.E.; Morales, L.M.; Torres, D.S.; Borghello, P.; Haidr, N.S.; Montalti, D. Plastic Ingestion Risk Is Related to the
Anthropogenic Activity and Breeding Stage in an Antarctic Top Predator Seabird Species. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020,157, 111351.
[CrossRef]
76.
Bergami, E.; Rota, E.; Caruso, T.; Birarda, G.; Vaccari, L.; Corsi, I. Plastics Everywhere: First Evidence of Polystyrene Fragments
inside the Common Antarctic Collembolan Cryptopygus Antarcticus. Biol. Lett. 2020,16, 20200093. [CrossRef]
77.
Horton, A.A.; Dixon, S.J. Microplastics: An Introduction to Environmental Transport Processes. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 2018,
5, e1268. [CrossRef]
78.
Brahney, J.; Mahowald, N.; Prank, M.; Cornwell, G.; Klimont, Z.; Matsui, H.; Prather, K.A. Constraining the Atmospheric Limb of
the Plastic Cycle. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2021,118, e2020719118. [CrossRef]
79.
Munyaneza, J.; Jia, Q.; Qaraah, F.A.; Hossain, M.F.; Wu, C.; Zhen, H.; Xiu, G. A Review of Atmospheric Microplastics Pollution:
In-Depth Sighting of Sources, Analytical Methods, Physiognomies, Transport and Risks. Sci. Total Environ. 2022,822, 153339.
[CrossRef]
80.
Bergmann, M.; Mützel, S.; Primpke, S.; Tekman, M.B.; Trachsel, J.; Gerdts, G. White and Wonderful? Microplastics Prevail in
Snow from the Alps to the Arctic. Sci. Adv. 2019,5, eaax1157. [CrossRef]
81.
Zhang, Y.; Gao, T.; Kang, S.; Allen, S.; Luo, X.; Allen, D. Microplastics in Glaciers of the Tibetan Plateau: Evidence for the
Long-Range Transport of Microplastics. Sci. Total Environ. 2021,758, 143634. [CrossRef]
82.
Allen, S.; Allen, D.; Phoenix, V.R.; Le Roux, G.; Jiménez, P.D.; Simonneau, A.; Binet, S.; Galop, D. Atmospheric Transport and
Deposition of Microplastics in a Remote Mountain Catchment. Nat. Geosci. 2019,12, 339–344. [CrossRef]
83.
Materi´c, D.; Kasper-Giebl, A.; Kau, D.; Anten, M.; Greilinger, M.; Ludewig, E.; Van Sebille, E.; Röckmann, T.; Holzinger, R. Micro-
and Nanoplastics in Alpine Snow: A New Method for Chemical Identification and (Semi)Quantification in the Nanogram Range.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020,54, 2353–2359. [CrossRef]
84.
Aves, A.R.; Revell, L.E.; Gaw, S.; Ruffell, H.; Schuddeboom, A.; Wotherspoon, N.E.; Larue, M.; Mcdonald, A.J. First evidence of
Microplastics in Antarctic Snow. Cryosphere 2022,16, 2127–2145. [CrossRef]
85.
González-Pleiter, M.; Edo, C.; Velázquez, D.; Casero-Chamorro, M.C.; Leganés, F.; Quesada, A.; Fernández-Piñas, F.; Rosal, R.
First Detection of Microplastics in the Freshwater of an Antarctic Specially Protected Area. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020,161, 111811.
[CrossRef]
86.
Citterich, F.; Lo Giudice, A.; Azzaro, M. A Plastic World: A Review of Microplastic Pollution in the Freshwaters of the Earth’s
poles. Sci. Total Environ. 2023,869, 161847. [CrossRef]

Environments 2025,12, 77 12 of 12
87.
González-Pleiter, M.; Lacerot, G.; Edo, C.; Pablo Lozoya, J.; Leganés, F.; Fernández-Piñas, F.; Rosal, R.; Teixeira-de-Mello, F. A
Pilot Study about Microplastics and Mesoplastics in an Antarctic Glacier. Cryosphere 2021,15, 2531–2539. [CrossRef]
88.
González-Pleiter, M.; Edo, C.; Aguilera, Á.; Viúdez-Moreiras, D.; Pulido-Reyes, G.; González-Toril, E.; Osuna, S.; de Diego-Castilla,
G.; Leganés, F.; Fernández-Piñas, F.; et al. Occurrence and Transport of Microplastics Sampled within and above the Planetary
Boundary Layer. Sci. Total Environ. 2021,761, 143213. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.