Articles

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0080-1

Microplastic contamination of river beds

significantly reduced by catchment-wide flooding
Rachel Hurley   *, Jamie Woodward* and James J. Rothwell

Microplastic contamination of the oceans is one of the world’s most pressing environmental concerns. The terrestrial com-
ponent of the global microplastic budget is not well understood because sources, stores and fluxes are poorly quantified. We
report catchment-wide patterns of microplastic contamination, classified by type, size and density, in channel bed sediments at
40 sites across urban, suburban and rural river catchments in northwest England. Microplastic contamination was pervasive on
all river channel beds. We found multiple urban contamination hotspots with a maximum microplastic concentration of approxi-
mately 517,000 particles m−2. After a period of severe flooding in winter 2015/16, all sites were resampled. Microplastic con-
centrations had fallen at 28 sites and 18 saw a decrease of one order of magnitude. The flooding exported approximately 70%
of the microplastic load stored on these river beds (equivalent to 0.85 ±​ 0.27 tonnes or 43 ±​ 14 billion particles) and eradicated
microbead contamination at 7 sites. We conclude that microplastic contamination is efficiently flushed from river catchments
during flooding.

A
ll of the world’s oceans are contaminated with microplas-
tics1,2. Recent estimates suggest there are 4.85 trillion micro-
plastic (<​5 mm) particles in the global ocean2. Microplastics
can be ingested by marine organisms and have the potential to bio-
accumulate and threaten ecosystem health3. They are also pollutant
vectors; once ingested they can transfer harmful organic chemicals
into the food chain4–6. Given their pervasive and persistent nature7,
microplastics have become a global environmental concern and a
potential risk to human populations8. Quantification of the vari-
ous sources of plastic debris in the oceans is not straightforward.
However, it has been estimated that fluxes from the terrestrial envi-
ronment contribute between 64 and 90% of the plastic debris in the
oceans9–11. Reconnaissance studies have shown elevated concentra-
tions of microplastics in river catchments12–22, but there has been no
systematic empirical assessment of patterns of microplastic contam-
ination or the fluvial processes governing their distribution. There is
therefore a pressing need to quantify the sources, stores and fluxes of
microplastics in river catchments to better understand their behav-
iour and the transfer of microplastics to the marine environment.
Fine-grained fluvial bed sediments and the sediment–water
interface are zones of intense biological activity23 providing impor-
tant habitats and food sources for a range of organisms. Even low
density plastic particles that normally float in freshwater, such as
polyethylene and polypropylene, can become incorporated into the
channel bed as a result of biofouling24 or other processes25. If the
bed sediment matrix is contaminated with microplastics, it poses
a significant threat to the health of the entire riverine ecosystem26.
Studies of coastal and large lake environments close to river out-
lets have pointed to densely populated urban environments as
important sources of microplastics27. While fluvial flooding must
play a key role in microplastic transfer, existing work on the role
of floods has focused solely on coastal locations beyond the river
catchment28–31. There is therefore a clear need to better understand
the fundamental processes associated with microplastic storage and
transfer during fluvial flooding.
Here, we quantify microplastic contamination within the fine-
grained bed sediments of ten rivers in northwest England that drain
into the Irish Sea (Supplementary Fig. 1). These rivers are single-
thread meandering channels with sandy gravel beds and cohesive
banks typical of many throughout the United Kingdom. They form
part of the upper Mersey (734 km2) and Irwell (793 km2) catchments
in the wider Manchester conurbation—the second most popu-
lous (2.55 million people) urban area in the United Kingdom. We
sampled the top 100 mm of bed sediment matrix at 40 sites across
these catchments under low flow conditions. Microplastic concen-
trations were determined following a density extraction procedure
that included the first quantification of seawater-buoyant micro-
plastics in freshwater sediment. Fourier transform infrared (FTIR)
spectroscopy was used to verify the microplastic identification pro-
cedure (Methods). The detailed particle size characteristics of the
microplastics were also determined. We then calculated channel bed
sediment microplastic storage across the entire river network by up-
scaling microplastic concentrations in all reaches as a function of
total sediment storage and channel bed area. To quantify the impact
of flood-related processes on the mobilization and transfer of bed
sediment microplastics, we resampled the same 40 sites following a
major period of flooding in winter 2015/16 that extended from early
November to early March. This included the 26 December (Boxing
Day) flood—the largest so far recorded in the Irwell catchment.
Global- and catchment-scale patterns of microplastic contami-
nation. By compiling the first global microplastic map and ranking
for marine and freshwater environments (Fig. 1 and Supplementary
Fig. 2), we show that the concentration of microplastics in river bed
sediments of the Mersey catchment is higher than in any other envi-
ronment—either deposited or in suspension—so far reported. The
most contaminated site (~517,000 particles m−2; Supplementary
Table 1) is on the River Tame (146 km2), a few kilometres upstream
of its confluence with the Etherow, which is 50% higher than the
maximum value for the next ranked site of the Incheon–Kyeonggi
beach sediments in South Korea (Fig. 1). The maximum value for
the Irwell, on the River Tonge (96.5 km2), is 191,000 particles m−2.
The River Irwell catchment ranks fourth globally for all environ-
ments (and second for fluvial systems; Supplementary Fig. 2)

Department of Geography, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. *e-mail: rachel.hurley@manchester.ac.uk; jamie.woodward@manchester.ac.uk

Nature Geoscience | VOL 11 | APRIL 2018 | 251–257 | www.nature.com/naturegeoscience 251

© 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
Articles Nature Geoscience

a
Maximum concentration Mersey/Irwell Rhine-Main Rivers
(particles m–2) Rivers Kuril-Kamchatka
Kalingrad beaches Lake
Trench
Rhine River Hovsgol
Great Lakes St Lawrence
>500,000 Swiss Lakes
River Incheon-Kyeonggi Japanese
San Francisco Lake Garda
beaches coastal
Bay NW Mediterranean
waters
Chesapeake Sea Kea Island Yangtze River
>100,000 Mediterranean Nakdong River
Bay coast
Sea Estuary
Tibetan Taihu Lake
Alabama North Atlantic
Plateau lakes
>10,000 coast Subtropical Gyre Pearl River
Guangdong Estuary
beaches
>1,000

Boa Viagem
>100 beach

>10

>1
>0.1
Guanabara
>0.01 Bay Canterbury
coastline
b
100,000 Coastal beaches, Australian
South Africa coastal waters
10,000
Average concentration (particles m–2)

Sediment microplastic
concentration
1,000
River sediment
100 Lacustrine sediment
Beach sediment
10 Marine sediment
Surface water
1 microplastic concentration
Rivers
0.1
Lakes
0.01 Coastal waters and estuaries
Marine waters
0.001
R

In
N

St ong eon ll, U

R wre ver be
Pe -M R ua es

La Riv Riv , Ca . K rea

La Ch Est , G da a

Sw Bol , Ita , H any

Ea s la a,

Ku Is
C Ka d b

Ke rbu atk es
Po Isla bea ren

C ges bea es, , NW

La n b ac s, G Ze cif
Ya O ch s eec land

Po tze io,

Sl Sh ys a

R nia Ch Pla
N
C ed r, N s
G pe a

La La B n S
La Ho , N US
Au Mi ol,
iv

ak -K /Irw

hi

an m

hi

or ine r, C da

hi
W Riv ch l, C tla
he i

re
ch

ov or
ke er ers na ore
ke ius ua erm

ke ea he r

ke ke ay ea
ke vs
La R gg K

ar ain ive ry, , K

st ke

ril lan

a
rtu nd

ng nta es

rc Riv Ca

st chi Mo rica
is sen ly
er

ne nce Est ach

le

ne b
th

at ake ea ope
d

te ch ach

sa ter
eo sey

M e
-
er s aly

ra ga n
up
l

a be he ew Pa
M

lia n go
n
er

n , U lia
e
ry a T
y

co S
Ab hin

e al

s
i

ea nne , A

r
e na

as
n ur
W
I

ta
t

ch ch

a
s

Am A
e
e

lw
E
ry
i

at
N

er
on

in

s
hi ntic
S o

ca
Ko

go
a ic
ng

Fig. 1 | Global microplastic (<5 mm) concentrations reported by aquatic and sedimentary environment. a,b, Microplastics mapped as maximum
concentrations (a) and ranked by average concentration (b). Alternative units and all sample sizes are given in Supplementary Fig. 2, where all the sources
are also listed. Note that in the absence of standardized reporting of microplastic data, this compilation includes data from studies employing a number of
methods. Concentration refers to both the actual and surface concentration.

with a mean microplastic concentration (across 26 sites) of 16,000
particles m−2. The top nine ranked hotspots in our global dataset
(Fig. 1) include rivers and beaches within some of the world’s most
populous urban environments, including Seoul, Hong Kong and the
southern Chinese province of Guangdong. Figure 1 also highlights
the paucity of microplastic data for rivers in the global south.
Microplastic contamination is pervasive across the river channel
beds of the Mersey and Irwell fluvial network. As Fig. 2a shows,
before the winter 2015/16 flooding, microplastics were detected in
39 out of 40 sites with a very wide range of observed concentrations.
Even rural headwater reaches and first-order streams are contami-
nated with microplastics (300–4,800 particles kg−1). Five distinctive
contamination hotspots (mean =​ 34,800 particles kg−1) were iden-
tified where microplastic concentrations in fine-grained bed sedi-
ments exceeded 15,000 particles kg−1 (Fig. 2a and Supplementary
Table 2). We also examined how microplastic particles in these rivers
vary by type and density (Figs. 2c and 3a,c). Across the river net-
work, there is considerable variability in the concentration of
microbeads, microfibres and microplastic fragments deposited on
channel beds (Fig. 3a). In most cases river reaches are characterized
by multiple microplastic types. In the lower Irwell, for example, one
site is dominated by microbeads, while immediately downstream
the microplastics in the bed sediments are almost entirely made up
of microplastic fragments. This is followed by a return to microbead
dominance at the next site in Manchester city centre. This down-
stream variability marks the transition of the lower Irwell from a
reach under the immediate influence of effluent from sewage treat-
ment through a suburban area and finally to a highly urbanized
reach with an abrupt increase in the density of combined sewer
overflows. This example illustrates the complex microplastic source
variability encountered in the urban and suburban fluvial environ-
ment. We have recently documented the extent of microplastic

252 Nature Geoscience | VOL 11 | APRIL 2018 | 251–257 | www.nature.com/naturegeoscience

© 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
Nature Geoscience Articles
a b
Pre-flooding Post-flooding

Irwell

Irwell
Ton To
ge ng
e
h h
Roc Roc

Croal Croal

Irw Irk Irw Irk

ell ell Manchester

e
m
City Centre

m
Ta
k
loc

Ta
d ck
Me dlo
Salford Quays Me
Adelphi Weir

Me Me

w
w

ro
rse rse

ro
y

he
y

he

Et
Et
75,000 Total
microplastics
25,000 (particles kg–1)
G

G
oy

oy
t

10,000

t
No particles Significant decrease in total
500 detected microplastics concentration

c d
Pre-flooding Post-flooding
N
0 10 km

Irwell
Irwell

Ton
ge To
ng
e
h h
Roc Roc

Croal Croal

Irw Irk Irw Irk

ell ell
e

e
m

m
Ta

Ta
ck ck
dlo dlo
Me Me
r
este
nch al
Ma an
C
Ship
Me
w

Me

w
ro

rse rse
ero
y
he

y Eth
Et

70,000 Microbeads
kg–1
25,000
G

No
oy

oy
t

10,000 microbeads Total evacuation

500 detected of microbeads

e 500
400
Discharge (m3 s–1)
26 December 2015
Catchment = 559.4 km2
Gauging station 24.1 m AOD

300

Pre-flooding Post-flooding
200 sampling sampling

100

0
A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J
2015–2016

Fig. 2 | Concentration of total microplastics and microbeads in channel bed sediments. a–d, Pre- (a and c) and post-flooding (b and d) concentrations of
total microplastics (a and b) and microbeads (c and d) at all 40 bed sediment sampling sites in the Irwell and Mersey catchments. e, Mean daily discharge
record for the River Irwell at Adelphi Weir. Note that this does not include the Irk and Medlock catchments. AOD, above ordnance datum.

contamination further downstream in the Salford Quays basins Part of the observed spatial variability in these urban and subur-
(where the lower Irwell becomes the Manchester Ship Canal; Fig. 2) ban catchments is controlled by microplastic density. Some micro-
and demonstrated that tubifex worms ingest microplastic fibres and beads, for example, are high density (1.2–1.8 g cm−3), while others
fragments from fine-grained bottom sediments26. are seawater buoyant (<​1.025 g cm−3) (Fig. 3c). Since the ultimate

Nature Geoscience | VOL 11 | APRIL 2018 | 251–257 | www.nature.com/naturegeoscience 253

© 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
Articles Nature Geoscience

a b
Pre-flooding 1% Post-flooding 1%
19%
33%
3%
57%
9% 77%

Irwell
Irwell
To Ton
ng ge
e

h h
Roc Roc

Croal Croal

Irw Irk Irw Irk Manchester

ell ell

e
City Centre

m
Ta

Ta
k ck
d loc dlo
Me Me

w
Me Me

ro
rse rse

ro

he
y y

he

Et
Et
75,000 Microplastics Microplastic type
(particles kg–1) Fragments
25,000 Fibres
G

G
oy

oy
t

t
10,000 Microbeads
No particles
500 detected Other

c d
Pre-flooding 38% Post-flooding 27% 35%
40%

22% 38%

Irwell
Irwell

To To
ng
e ng
e

h h
Roc Roc

Croal Croal

Irw Irk Irw Irk

ell ell
e

e
m

m
Ta

Ta
ck ck
dlo dlo
Me Me
w

w
Me Me
ro

ro
rse rse
he

y y he
Et

Et

Microplastic density
75,000 Microplastics (g cm–3)
(particles kg–1) <1.025
25,000 (seawater buoyant)
G

G
oy

oy

N
t

10,000 1.025–1.2
No particles 0 10 km
500 detected 1.2–1.8

Fig. 3 | Microplastic concentrations by type and density. a–d, Type (a and b) and density (c and d) of microplastics pre- (a and c) and post-flooding (b
and d). Note that the information at the bottom of a and b applies to both panels, as does the information at the bottom of c and d. The summary charts
represent the mean values for all 40 sites.

sink for the bulk of the microplastic load in the Mersey and Irwell
catchments is the Irish Sea, it is significant that more than one-third
(38%) of the total mass of microplastics stored on these channel
beds is seawater buoyant (Fig. 3c).
Flood-driven microplastic flushing and reorganization. The
mean daily discharge for the River Irwell at the Adelphi Weir gaug-
ing station from April 2015 to July 2016 is shown in Fig. 2e. The
post-flooding microplastic dataset reveals a striking pattern of
microplastic evacuation from the study catchments (Fig. 2a,b) with
the mean microplastic concentration across the 40 sites falling from
6,350 to 2,812 particles kg−1 (Supplementary Table 1). Of the 40
sites across the 10 rivers, 28 recorded significant decreases in bed
sediment microplastic concentrations and 18 of these fell by one
order of magnitude (Supplementary Table 2). The Supplementary
Information gives full details of the uncertainty analysis we con-
ducted to establish the significance of these changes. Microplastic
contamination of the River Irwell channel beds was significantly
reduced, with a mean decrease of 64% and both urban contami-
nation hotspots (Tonge and Roch) extinguished. Concentrations
within the Mersey were also much reduced with a mean decrease
of 81%. Interestingly, total microplastic concentrations at the River
Tame contamination hotspot actually increased by 50% after the
winter flooding and show a ~400% increase in microbead concentra-
tion from 14,000 to 70,600 particles kg−1 (Fig. 2 and Supplementary
Table 2). These data show how hotspots of severe microplastic and
microbead contamination can form very rapidly in urban rivers.
The microplastic contamination observed in this reach is mirrored
by elevated levels of heavy metals32 that have been linked by the UK
Environment Agency to significant inputs of industrial effluent.

254 Nature Geoscience | VOL 11 | APRIL 2018 | 251–257 | www.nature.com/naturegeoscience

© 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
Nature Geoscience Articles
a 18
n = 266 Mean = 377 µm
16 D50 = 287 µm Mode = 325 µm
Other
Fibres Microbeads 79–418 µm (224 µm)
14 Fragments Fragments 107–4,301 µm (611 µm)
Microbeads Fibres 94–1,667 µm (741 µm)
Other 237–1,302 µm (549 µm)
12

10

2
Frequency (%)

b
16
n = 221 Mean = 436 µm
14 D50 = 292 µm Mode = 275 µm

Microbeads 98–585 µm (251 µm)

12 Fragments 121–4,303 µm (483 µm)
Fibres 449–4,779 µm (1,682 µm)
Other 573–1,231 µm (791 µm)
10

0
10 20 50 100 200 500 1,000 2,000 5,000 10,000
Particle long axis (µm)

Fig. 4 | Particle size characteristics of microplastics. a,b, Pre- (a) and post-flooding (b) sample sets. Each bar shows the contribution by microplastic
type for each size class. Particles were measured along their long axis. Size range and mean values are given for each microplastic type.

1,500 30 600 At the other 39 sites, post-flooding microplastic concentra-

tions were all below 3,500, with 5 sites as low as 200 particles kg−1
(Supplementary Tables 1 and 2).
1,250 25 500
Alongside the processes of flood-driven channel bed scour,
Seawater-buoyant microplastics (kg)

hydraulic sorting and microplastic flushing, we also see a distinc-

Number of microbeads (billions)

tive reorganization of microplastic types between the two sampling

Total microplastics (kg)

1,000 20 400
periods (Fig. 3a,b). Across the Irwell and upper Mersey catch-
ments, there was a ~40% post-flooding reduction (from 57–19%)
750 15 300 in microplastic fragments and a ~45% increase (from 33–77%) in
microbeads (Fig. 3a,b). Even though we observed an increase in the
proportion of microbead contamination at most sites, 21 sites show
500 10 200
a significant decrease in absolute microbead concentrations follow-
ing the winter flooding (Fig. 3a,b and Supplementary Table 2). We
250 5 100 estimate that across both catchments approximately 7 ±​ 3.6 billion
microbeads were lost from channel bed storage during the winter
flooding (Supplementary Tables 3 and 4). This equates to about
0 0 0 1 million applications of facial exfoliant. Our data show a complete
cleansing of microbeads from seven sites that were previously con-
od e-

od e-

od e-
g

od st-
od st-

od st-

g
g

g
in

in

in
flo Pr

flo Pr

flo Pr

in
in

in

flo Po
flo Po

flo Po

taminated. These include reaches in the headwater catchments of

Fig. 5 | Change in microplastic load stored on channel beds across the River Goyt and upper Irwell (Fig. 2d and Supplementary Table
the Irwell and Mersey catchments. The dashed bar is the contribution 2). At the same time, it is important to recognize that a phase of
of the River Tame contamination hotspot (Fig. 2) for each of the three lower-magnitude flooding in the Mersey still resulted in catchment-
microplastic parameters. The error bars in each case are based on the wide reductions in total microplastic concentrations, as well as total
estimates of uncertainty detailed in Supplementary Table 5. microbead cleansing in four reaches (Supplementary Table 2). Thus,

Nature Geoscience | VOL 11 | APRIL 2018 | 251–257 | www.nature.com/naturegeoscience 255

© 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
Articles
the flushing process associated with channel bed scour and micro-
plastic particle sorting operates over a range of flood discharges.
Figure 4 presents size data (long axis) for individual microplas-
tic particles (n =​ 487) from the Irwell and Mersey sample sets (see
Methods). The pre- and post-flooding particle size distributions
are very similar, with a D50 of approximately 290 µ​m in each case.
Both distributions are dominated by microbeads and fragments in
the size range 100–500 µ​m. The particles with the greatest long axes
are dominated by fibres and fragments. Interestingly, the flood-
related spatial reorganization of microplastic types has not signifi-
cantly modified the size distribution of microbeads or fragments.
While we have not observed clear evidence for microplastic par-
ticle fragmentation over this time period, the associated processes
require more detailed research. Many of the larger microplastics
will be transported as discrete particles, but a component of the
microplastic load will probably be incorporated into composite
sediment particles33.
Catchment yields and microplastic export to the oceans. In a
recent review34, it was suggested that the vast majority of micro-
plastics in the oceans originate from the breakdown of larger plastic
items in the marine environment. The validity of this assertion can
only be established via robust empirical assessment of the micro-
plastic flux from river catchments. Our data show that flood events
efficiently flush significant quantities of microplastics from the
continents. During the winter flooding of 2015/16, we estimate that
0.85 ±​ 0.27 tonnes of microplastics (equivalent to 43 ±​  14 billion
particles) were evacuated from channel bed storage in the upper
Mersey and Irwell (Fig. 5 and Supplementary Table 3). In terms of
microplastic yield from channel beds over the 2015/16 hydrological
year, this equates to 0.87 ±​ 0.28 kg km−2 for the Irwell (793 km2) and
0.22 ±​ 0.07 kg km−2 for the Mersey (734 km2) or 0.56 ±​ 0.18 kg km−2
for the combined catchments (1,527 km2). The yield for the Irwell
is approximately four times that of the Mersey over this period
because of higher-magnitude winter flooding and more effective
flushing of the channel beds across the drainage network.
While these data represent just one component of the total flu-
vial microplastic flux from these catchments, it is important to
recognize that Fig. 5 shows the change in channel bed storage over
what is effectively the entire 2015/16 hydrological year (Fig. 2e).
Our identification of significant flood-driven microplastic export
from river catchments receives support from the emerging literature
on microplastic deposition on beaches and estuarine environments
at catchment outlets in South Korea28 and India29. It is very likely
that these processes apply to river systems more generally at a range
of scales and under different climate regimes. We estimate that, dur-
ing the 2015/16 winter flooding, 0.36 ±​ 0.12 tonnes (equivalent to
approximately 17 ±​ 5.6 billion particles) of seawater-buoyant micro-
plastics were removed from channel bed storage across the upper
Mersey and Irwell catchments (Fig. 5 and Supplementary Table 4).
According to recently published estimates2, this number of particles
equates to approximately 0.5% of the total floating microplastic bur-
den in the global ocean (4.85 trillion particles2). This value exceeds
1% if we use our total microplastic particle flux. While a propor-
tion of these fluxes will eventually be transferred to the marine sedi-
ment store, given the relatively small size of our study catchments,
these flux data suggest that the total microplastic load in the world’s
oceans must be far higher than previously estimated. It is clear that
further work is needed to identify the quantities and mechanisms
of microplastic transfer from river catchments and the fate of such
particles in marine systems, to better understand the global geogra-
phy of microplastic contamination.
Managing microplastics in the Anthropocene. It is now very
clear that microplastic contamination of both the fluvial and
marine realms represents a global grand challenge with profound
256
© 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
Nature Geoscience
implications across many areas of science and policy. A key part of
tackling the global microplastic problem is effective regulation to
ensure that, in all parts of the world, the multiple sources of micro-
plastics in river catchments are brought under control. However,
this must also be underpinned by an understanding of fundamen-
tal processes, robust monitoring protocols and the establishment
of maximum acceptable microplastic concentrations, with effective
sampling across drainage networks. This will help establish the full
extent of the problem and trajectories of recovery following micro-
plastic source management. The fluvial flushing process reported
here is especially significant in the light of recent restrictions on
microbead use, with legislation passed in the United States in 2015
(ref. 35) and in the United Kingdom in 2018, and with proposals
pending in Canada, Australia and across the European Union36. With
appropriate management strategies that control microbead sources
in river catchments, our findings indicate that this form of riverine
microplastic contamination can be effectively and rapidly reduced.
In light of recent suggestions that microplastics may be useful in
a formal definition of the Anthropocene37,38, it is important to fully
understand their role in the global sediment system. In the period
following the Second World War, during what has been called the
‘Great Acceleration’, the Mersey and Irwell rivers were some of the
most heavily polluted catchments in Europe. Remarkable improve-
ments in water quality and ecological status have taken place in the
past three decades. Throughout the postwar period, however, as in
other river systems around the world, microplastic contamination
of river systems has passed under the monitoring and regulatory
radars. While our findings undoubtedly highlight a significant new
challenge for river catchment management in all parts of the world,
we also show that fluvial processes have the capacity to rapidly
cleanse river channel beds of microplastic contamination.
Methods
Methods, including statements of data availability and any asso-
ciated accession codes and references, are available at https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41561-018-0080-1.
Received: 24 February 2017; Accepted: 8 February 2018;
Published online: 12 March 2018
References
1. Van Sebille, E. et al. A global inventory of small floating plastic debris.
Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 124006 (2015).
2. Eriksen, M. et al. 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 (2014).
3. Wright, S. L., Thompson, R. C. & Galloway, T. S. The physical impacts of
microplastics on marine organisms: a review. Environ. Pollut. 178,
483–492 (2013).
4. Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Halsband, C. & Galloway, T. S. Microplastics as
contaminants in the marine environment: a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62,
2588–2597 (2011).
5. Teuten, E. L., Rowland, S. J., Galloway, T. S. & Thompson, R. C. Potential
for plastics to transport hydrophobic contaminants. Environ. Sci. Technol.
41, 7759–7764 (2007).
6. Teuten, E. L. et al. Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the
environment and to wildlife. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 364,
2027–2045 (2009).
7. Andrady, A. L. in Marine Anthropogenic Litter (eds Bergmann, M., Gutow,
L. & Klages, M.) 57–72 (Springer, 2015).
8. Thompson, R. C., Moore, C. J., vom Saal, F. S. & Swan, S. H. Plastics, the
environment and human health: current consensus and future trends.
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 364, 2153–2166 (2009).
9. Andrady, A. L. Microplastics in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
62, 1596–1605 (2011).
10. Rapport 2016 sur l’arc Atlantique (Expédition MED, 2016); http://go.nature.
com/2CQUneQ
11. Mehlhart, G. & Blepp, M. Study on Land-Sourced Litter (LSL) in the Marine
Environment: Review of Sources and Literature (Öko-Institut, 2012); https://
www.oeko.de/oekodoc/1487/2012-058-en.pdf
Nature Geoscience | VOL 11 | APRIL 2018 | 251–257 | www.nature.com/naturegeoscience
Nature Geoscience
12. Moore, C. J., Lattin, G. L. & Zellers, A. F. Quantity and type of plastic
debris flowing from two urban rivers to coastal waters and beaches of
Southern California. J. Integr. Coast. Zone Manag. 11, 65–73 (2011).
13. Dris, R., Gasperi, J., Rocher, V., Mohamed, S. & Tassin, B. Microplastic
contamination in an urban area: case in greater Paris. Environ. Chem. 12,
592–599 (2015).
14. Faure, F., Demars, C., Wieser, O., Kunz, M. & de Alencastro, L. F. Plastic
pollution in Swiss surface waters: nature and concentrations, interaction
with pollutants. Environ. Chem. 12, 582–591 (2015).
15. Horton, A. A., Svendsen, C., Williams, R. J., Spurgeon, D. J. & Lahive, E.
Large microplastic particles in sediments of tributaries of the River Thames,
UK—abundance, sources and methods for effective quantification. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 114, 218–226 (2017).
16. Klein, S., Worch, E. & Knepper, T. P. Occurrence and spatial distribution of
microplastics in river shore sediments of the Rhine-Main area in Germany.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 6070–6076 (2015).
17. Mani, T., Hauk, A., Walter, U. & Burkhardt-Holm, P. Microplastics profile
along the Rhine River. Sci. Rep. 5, 17988 (2015).
18. Zhang, K., Gong, W., Lv, J., Xiong, X. & Wu, C. Accumulation of floating
microplastics behind the Three Gorges Dam. Environ. Pollut. 204,
117–123 (2015).
19. Castañeda, R. A., Avlijas, S., Simard, M. A., Ricciardi, A. & Smith, R.
Microplastic pollution in St. Lawrence River sediments. Can. J. Fish. Aquat.
Sci. 71, 1767–1771 (2014).
20. McCormick, A., Hoellein, T. J., Mason, S. A., Schluep, J. & Kelly, J. J.
Microplastic is an abundant and distinct microbial habitat in an urban
river. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 11863–11871 (2014).
21. Lechner, A. et al. The Danube so colourful: a potpourri of plastic litter
outnumbers fish larvae in Europe’s second largest river. Environ. Pollut. 188,
177–181 (2014).
22. Wagner, M. et al. Microplastics in freshwater ecosystems: what we know
and what we need to know. Environ. Sci. Eur. 26, 12 (2014).
23. Shumchenia, E. J., Guarinello, M. L. & King, J. W. A re-assessment of
Narragansett Bay benthic habitat quality between 1988 and 2008. Estuaries
Coasts 39, 1463–1477 (2016).
24. Hidalgo-Ruz, V., Gutow, L., Thompson, R. C. & Thiel, M. Microplastics in
the marine environment: a review of the methods used for identification
and quantification. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 3060–3075 (2012).
25. Corcoran, P. L. et al. Benthic plastic debris in marine and freshwater
environments. Environ. Sci. Process. Impact 17, 1363–1369 (2015).
26. Hurley, R. R., Woodward, J. C. & Rothwell, J. J. Ingestion of microplastics
by freshwater tubifex worms. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 12844–12851 (2017).
27. Dris, R. et al. Beyond the ocean: contamination of freshwater ecosystems
with (micro-) plastic particles. Environ. Chem. 12, 539–550 (2015).
28. Lee, J. et al. Relationships among the abundances of plastic debris in
different size classes on beaches in South Korea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 77,
349–354 (2013).
29. Veerasingam, S., Mugilarasan, M., Venkatachalapathy, R. & Vethamony, P.
Influence of 2015 flood on the distribution and occurrence of microplastic
pellets along the Chennai coast, India. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 109,
196–204 (2016).
Nature Geoscience | VOL 11 | APRIL 2018 | 251–257 | www.nature.com/naturegeoscience
© 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
Articles
30. Lattin, G. L., Moore, C. J., Zellers, A. F., Moore, S. L. & Weisberg, S. B. A
comparison of neustonic plastic and zooplankton at different depths near
the southern California shore. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 49, 291–294 (2004).
31. Moore, C. J., Moore, S. L., Weisberg, S. B., Lattin, G. L. & Zellers, A. F. A
comparison of neustonic plastic and zooplankton abundance in southern
California’s coastal waters. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 44, 1035–1038 (2002).
32. Hurley, R. R., Rothwell, J. J. & Woodward, J. C. Metal contamination of bed
sediments in the Irwell and Upper Mersey catchments, northwest England:
exploring the legacy of industry and urban growth. J. Soils Sediments 17,
2648–2665 (2017).
33. Woodward, J. C. & Walling, D. E. Composite suspended sediment particles
in river systems: their incidence, dynamics and physical characteristics.
Hydrol. Process. 21, 3601–3614 (2007).
34. Galloway, T. S., Cole, M. & Lewis, C. Interactions of microplastic debris
throughout the marine ecosystem. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 0116 (2017).
35. Pallone, F. H.R.1321: Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015 (Library of
Congress, 2015); https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-
bill/1321
36. Rochman, C. M., Cook, A.-M. & Koelmans, A. A. Plastic debris and policy:
using current scientific understanding to invoke positive change. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 35, 1617–1626 (2016).
37. Zalasiewicz, J. et al. The geological cycle of plastics and their use as a
stratigraphic indicator of the Anthropocene. Anthropocene 13, 4–17 (2016).
38. Corcoran, P. L., Moore, C. J. & Jazvac, K. An anthropogenic marker horizon
in the future rock record. GSA Today 24, 4–8 (2014).
Acknowledgements
We thank colleagues in the laboratories in the Department of Geography and the School
of Earth and Environmental Sciences at The University of Manchester for help with a
range of analyses. R.H. was in receipt of a University of Manchester President’s Doctoral
Scholar Award, which supported this research. We thank N. Scarle for assistance with the
figures and the Environment Agency for discharge data.
Author contributions
J.W. initiated the microplastics project. R.H., J.W. and J.J.R. conceived and designed the
study. R.H., J.W. and J.J.R. conducted the field sampling. R.H. performed all analyses. All
authors contributed to interpretation of the data and writing of the manuscript.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Supplementary information is available for this paper at https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41561-018-0080-1.
Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints.
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to R.H. or J.W.
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
257
Articles
Methods
Site locations. This study focused on the upper Mersey (734 km2) and Irwell
(793 km2) catchments within the Greater Manchester region of northwest England.
Manchester is a large urban area with a population of 2.55 million across the
metropolitan borough. We sampled ten rivers within this area—the Irwell, Roch,
Croal, Tonge, Irk, Medlock, Mersey, Tame, Etherow and Goyt—in addition to
smaller tributary reaches and headwaters (Supplementary Fig. 1). The drainage
network and the extent of the urban area are also shown in Supplementary Fig. 1.
We sampled in 40 reaches across the Mersey and Irwell catchments that were
judged to be representative of these rivers. Sample sites included rural, suburban
and urban reaches from stream orders 1–7. Full sample site information and
ambient flow conditions are provided in the Supplementary Data. The first phase of
bed sediment sampling was undertaken between April and July 2015 (Fig. 2e).
On 26 December 2015 (Boxing Day), a large storm affected the northwest of
England, leading to widespread flooding. Many river levels reached record heights,
with 37 of 44 river gauges in the upper Irwell catchment exhibiting the highest
levels since records began more than 60 years ago39. Peak discharge was over
560 m3 s−1 in the lower Irwell (specific flow: 0.71 m3 s−1 km2). This flooding took
place at the end of the seventh wettest year on record40. While flooding was more
intense in the Irwell catchment, there was also widespread, but much more typical,
flooding in the upper Mersey catchment. Peak discharge on the upper Mersey on
26 December 2015 was 133 m3 s−1 (specific flow: 0.18 m3 s−1 km2) and this formed
part of a longer phase of flooding in winter 2015/16. Repeat sampling at all 40
sites was carried out under low flow conditions between May and mid-July 2016
(Supplementary Data).
Bed sediment sampling. Fine-grained river bed sediment samples were collected
using the cylinder resuspension technique reported in ref. 41. At each site,
sediments were sampled at four locations across the channel bed and combined
into a single sample to account for any intrasite variability. By isolating a known
area of river bed, the use of this cylindrical sampling apparatus permits the
estimation of fine-grained sediment storage at each site using equation (1)42:
CsWv
BSs = (1)
A selected from across the spectrum of particle characteristics, including density,
where bed sediment storage (BSs), reported in g m−2, is calculated as a function of
the sediment concentration associated with the container (Cs; g l−1) and the volume
of water enclosed in the cylinder (Wv; l), divided by the surface area isolated during
sampling (A; 0.14 m2).
Samples were collected by inserting a large cylinder (height: 690 mm;
diameter: 420 mm) into the bed sediment matrix to a depth of 100 mm to sample
the biologically active zone. Sediments within the cylinder were agitated into
suspension for 10 s using a trowel at 0, 2 and 4 min. Turbid water samples were
decanted into a clean 25 l polyethylene container using 1 l jugs. Samples were
transported to the laboratory and stored at 4 °C. Following settling, the sediments
were wet-sieved through a 63 µ​m mesh to separate the silt/clay and sand fractions.
The sand fraction used here was oven dried at 40 °C. The uncertainty associated
with the Lambert and Walling method was systematically evaluated by ref. 43 across
a range of fluvial environments in the United Kingdom. Based on data collected
from 12 rivers (n =​ 288 samples), the method performed equally well across a wide
range of bed substrate conditions. This method is therefore considered to yield
reliable reach-scale estimates of the extent of deposited fine sediment.
Microplastic identification and quantification. Microplastic definitions are
largely concerned with the size classes considered. A number of classes have been
suggested and <​5 mm is now the most commonly applied. Here, we used the 5 mm
boundary classification, although the majority of particles observed were <​1  mm.
A density separation technique was used to isolate microplastic particles for
quantification. Three density solutions were used: 1.025, 1.2 and 1.8 g cm−3. Two
extractions were performed for each solution to ensure complete separation of
microplastics from sediment. In line with previous studies24, a saturated NaCl
solution (1.2 g cm−3) was used. However, this fails to isolate polymers with densities
greater than 1.2 g cm−3, which can account for up to 17% of the demand for plastic
products44. To isolate higher-density microplastic particles, we used a 1.8 g cm−3 NaI
solution. An additional extraction was employed at seawater density (1.025 g cm−3
NaCl) to estimate the proportion of microplastics that may become buoyant upon
entry into saline waters in downstream estuarine or marine environments.
For all extractions, only sediments >​63  µ​m were analysed since smaller
particles cannot be reliably identified as plastic material through visual
inspection24. Some 10 g of sediment was placed into 50 ml Falcon tubes, which were
topped up with 1.025 g cm−3 NaCl solution. Samples were shaken vigorously for
3 min and allowed to settle for 4 h or until the solution became clear. Lower density
microplastic particles float to the surface of this solution and can be decanted.
The solution was filtered through Whatman 1 filter papers. A second extract at a
density of 1.025 g cm−3 was applied. The Falcon tubes were thoroughly rinsed
with the extract solution. The process was then repeated sequentially using the
denser extract solutions. Filter papers were transferred to petri dishes and oven
dried at 50 °C.
© 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
Nature Geoscience
During all stages of sample processing and extraction, aluminium foil was used
to cover all apparatus and samples to prevent contamination. Triplicate vessel,
solution and procedural blanks were created during each round of microplastic
analysis to identify any sources of contamination. A small quantity of particles
and fibres (such as cotton fibres) were reported in the blanks, but none responded
to the hot needle test. No microplastic particles were identified in the blanks
at any stage.
Peroxide digests were considered as a means of removing organic material from
samples to reduce obscuration of microplastic particles and the misidentification of
natural materials as polymers. However, initial tests to examine the effects of such
digests led to the bleaching, as opposed to complete removal, of organic material,
in some cases concealing organic structures and producing greater amounts of
organic materials that resembled microplastic fragments. The efficacy of peroxide
digestion has been questioned elsewhere45 and these peroxide digests were not
performed on the microplastic samples. Alternatively, a series of steps was followed
to definitively identify and then quantify microplastic particles.
Dried filter papers were traversed systematically using a Zeiss Axio Zoom.V16
stereomicroscope at 20–50×​magnification. Microplastic particles were visually
identified using the following criteria: (1) no visible organic structures24 (in cases
where the lack of structure was not clear, particles were transferred to a more
powerful light microscope for further examination); (2) a positive reaction to the
hot needle test46; and (3) maintenance of structural integrity when touched
or moved.
Additional features such as ‘unnatural’ dimensions (that is, perfectly spherical
shape) or colour (that is, blue or bright pink) can be used to characterize materials
of probable artificial origin, but should not be solely relied on to classify particles
as microplastics. Only particles that unanimously passed this visual identification
procedure were counted as microplastic and included in measures of the total
microplastic concentrations. Verification of polymer composition was performed
on a subsample of the microplastic particles using a PerkinElmer Spotlight 400
FTIR spectrometer equipped with a diamond Attenuated Total Reflectance
accessory. The spectrum range was set at 4,000–650 cm−1, with a resolution of
4 cm−1. The microplastic particles analysed using FTIR were randomly selected
from across the 40 sample sites to incorporate spatial variability. Particles were
type and size class, for pre- (n =​ 50) and post-flood (n =​ 50) sediment samples.
In total, 16 co-scans were obtained for each particle and the resultant spectra
were compared with reference data from a standard Attenuated Total Reflectance
Polymers library. Some 100 particles were analysed and all were verified to
be polymers.
Once identified as microplastic, particles were visually characterized as
fragments, fibres, microbeads or ‘other’ and the size, colour and extent of visible
biofouling or flocculation into composite particles33 was also noted. In almost
all cases, ‘other’ refers to pieces of glitter coated in clear plastic and a smaller
number of plastic particles that could not be reliably identified as either specifically
engineered or fragmented.
Particles were carefully extracted from the filter paper using fine tweezers and
placed into a preweighed pot. Once examined in full, samples were then weighed
for each density extraction; that is, three subsamples per site (the duplicate extracts
for each density solution were aggregated into a single sample at this stage). The
counts and weights obtained for the samples facilitated the quantification of
microplastics in a number of ways. To permit comparison between studies, the
microplastic concentrations are expressed in several units, as employed in other
published studies (Supplementary Table 1). For samples where no microplastic
particles were identified, two further 10 g samples of bed sediment were analysed to
verify the absence of microplastic particles. Only one site in the pre-flood sample
set was found to be free of microplastic contamination. For the low contamination
sites, two further samples were analysed and the results of the three analyses were
then averaged.
The size characteristics of microplastic particles were also analysed. A large
subsample of particles from pre- (n = 266) and post-flood (n = 221) samples
was selected. Measurement was achieved using a Zeiss Axiocam 105 colour
camera attached to a stereomicroscope. Dimensions were measured on ZEN 2
imaging software (https://www.zeiss.com/microscopy/int/products/microscope-
software.html) following graticule calibration. Because of the size characteristics
of microplastic particles such as fibres, the long axis was measured to facilitate
meaningful comparisons across microplastic types. Note that for microbeads
(which are spherical) all the axes are the same length.
Uncertainty analysis. To quantify the uncertainty associated with the microplastic
concentrations and flux estimates, a full uncertainty analysis was performed. A
further 12 channel bed sediment samples were collected from a single river reach
at the Urmston site on the Mersey (Supplementary Fig. 1). A grid of 12 sampling
locations (4 m ×​ 3 m) within the reach was marked out and bed sediments were
collected following the procedure detailed above. The sediments were processed
and analysed for microplastics. This exercise allowed us to establish uncertainty
estimates for both the sediment storage and microplastic analyses in this study.
This included the uncertainty associated with each microplastic type and density.
The full results of the uncertainty analysis are provided in Supplementary Table 5.
Nature Geoscience | www.nature.com/naturegeoscience
Nature Geoscience
Uncertainties associated with each microplastic type allowed us to establish
the significance of any differences between the pre- and post-flood datasets
(Supplementary Table 2). Furthermore, the full assessment of sediment storage
uncertainty at Urmston facilitated estimation of the uncertainty associated with
both reach- and catchment-scale microplastic flux calculations (Supplementary
Tables 3 and 4).
Spatial quantification and estimation of the impact of flooding. Reach-scale
estimates of bed sediment microplastic storage were obtained from calculations
derived for each site scaled up to representative river reaches (equation (2)):
Ac × BSs × MPc
RS microplastic = (2)
k ranking using the reported concentrations12–22,28,51–119. Only concentrations
where reach-scale microplastic storage (RSmicroplastic; mg) is calculated as a function
of channel area (Ac; m2), bed sediment storage (BSs; kg m−2) and microplastic
concentration (MPc; mg kg−1). The result can be converted using the dimensionless
conversion factor k to produce output in kg or tonnes. For microplastic types (such
as microbeads), quantification by mass was not possible due to the weighing of
bulk samples consisting of multiple particle types. Hence, these calculations use
microplastic concentrations in particles kg−1 of sediment and produce an output
in number of particles. The calculations were performed for each defined river
reach and combined to produce totals for the entire upper Mersey and Irwell
drainage network.
Channel area was obtained using Ordnance Survey MasterMap Water Network
data and field calculations applied in QGIS 2.18.0. All artificial waterways (such
as canals) were removed from the dataset. Additionally, channels above reservoirs
were excluded from areal calculations as the influence of reservoirs on the
transport of fluvial microplastics is not yet sufficiently understood.
Several methods were considered to characterize reach-scale contamination.
UKTAG (United Kingdom Technical Advisory Group)-defined water bodies47 used by
the UK Environment Agency in the context of the Water Framework Directive were
deemed to be of insufficient resolution. Three alternative approaches were evaluated.
Method 1. The first method used an average of microplastic concentrations for
reaches between sites. When confluences were included in a defined reach, an average
was taken of the three sites involved. The last sites on each reach were applied in
downstream extrapolation and the first sites on each reach were used in upstream
extrapolation. This approach is most commonly applied in studies of sediment
storage change48,49, which assume that reach-scale variability can be accounted for by
using the average of two monitoring sites. However, it was found that this approach
exaggerated the influence of the site-specific contamination hotspots.
Method 2. The second method applied microplastic concentrations to the channel
area downstream of a site until another site was encountered. If a confluence point
was reached before the next site, the average of the two sites upstream was taken
for the corresponding channel area. Headwater catchments were characterized
by an upstream extrapolation of the first site encountered. This method followed
the assumption that each site represents a known concentration that persists
downstream. However, this method was found to exaggerate the influence of
microplastic concentrations from headwater sites by propagating their low
concentrations into urban areas.
Method 3. The third method followed a similar approach, but considered upstream
extrapolation of microplastic concentrations. The reach below the final site within
a catchment was characterized by downstream extrapolation. This follows the
assumption that the degree of contamination at any point reflects an aggregate of
upstream characteristics—an approach that has been applied in US Environment
Protection Agency water quality frameworks50.
After evaluating each approach, method 3 was selected as it was judged
to provide the most representative definition of reaches and the most realistic
expression of contamination hotspots. The results for each of the methods are
provided in Supplementary Table 3. The export of microplastics associated with
flooding in each catchment was calculated as the difference between pre- and
post-flood channel bed sediment loads. Incorporating catchment-wide changes in
sediment storage as described above accounts for the influence of the mobilization
and redeposition of channel bed sediment and associated microplastics across the
entire study area. Our flux estimate approach yields a conservative estimate of the
total export of microplastics as it does not consider the following:
• The role of sewer overflows active during the flooding where significant quanti-
ties of microplastics may have been released during flood events;
• The export of microplastic particles transported directly in suspension in the
overlying water column;
• The accumulation of microplastics under low flow conditions following the
winter 2015/16 flooding but before the second round of bed sediment sampling;
• The contribution from biofouling. Organic matter removal from microplastic
particle surfaces was not undertaken. In this context, it is important to appreci-
ate that during the particle size analysis (n =​ 487 particles) of the microplastics,
Nature Geoscience | www.nature.com/naturegeoscience
© 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
Articles
we did not observe a significant contribution from biofouling and the micro-
beads, which typically predominate, showed clean, lustrous surfaces. Further-
more, the FTIR spectra demonstrated very little evidence of interference from
particle coatings despite the absence of an organic matter removal step. This
suggests that the particles were not heavily coated in a biofilm layer during the
gravimetric separation. The limited evidence for biofouling may be explained
by the short residence time of microplastic particles on the stream beds in our
study catchments and the potentially abrasive effects of a significant sand load
in these rivers.
Global microplastic contamination map and ranking. We have assembled a
global inventory of microplastic studies and present these data in a map and
reported for microplastics <​5 mm expressed as a mean or maximum value were
included. A range of units have been used to report microplastic concentrations
in the literature. Most commonly, the results are expressed by mass or volume (for
example, particles kg−1 or particles m−3) or by area (particles m−2 or particles km−2).
To allow comparability between studies, the units were converted, where possible,
to two units: particles kg−1 and particles m−2. Since a standardized method for
analysing microplastics has not yet been established, the concentrations
presented on the map and ranking incorporate data derived from a range of
methodologies, including different particle size classes, extraction techniques and
identification procedures.
Data availability. All datasets are available from the corresponding authors
upon request.
References
39. Flood Investigation Report: Greater Manchester 26th December 2015 (GMCA,
2016); https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/downloads/file/199/
boxing_day_flood_report_2015
40. Annual 2015 (Met Office, 2016); http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/
summaries/2015/annual
41. Lambert, C. P. & Walling, D. E. Measurement of channel
storage of suspended sediment in a gravel-bed river. CATENA 15,
65–80 (1988).
42. Owens, P. N., Walling, D. E. & Leeks, G. J. L. Deposition and storage of
fine-grained sediment within the main channel system of the River Tweed,
Scotland. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 24, 1061–1076 (1999).
43. Duerdoth, C. P. et al. Assessment of a rapid method for quantitative
reach-scale estimates of deposited fine sediment in rivers. Geomorphology
230, 37–50 (2015).
44. Plastics—The Facts 2013: An Analysis of European Latest Plastics Production,
Demand and Waste Data (PlasticsEurope, 2013).
45. Cole, M. et al. Isolation of microplastics in biota-rich seawater samples and
marine organisms. Sci. Rep. 4, 4528 (2014).
46. De Witte, B. et al. Quality assessment of the blue mussel (Mytilus edulis):
comparison between commercial and wild types. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 85,
146–155 (2014).
47. Water for Life and Livelihoods. River Basin Management Plan North West
River Basin District. Annex B: Water Body Status Objectives (Defra &
Environment Agency, 2009); https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/
system/uploads/attachment_data/file/300524/genw0910bsri-e-e.pdf
48. Walling, D. E., Collins, A. L., Jones, P. A., Leeks, G. J. L. & Old, G.
Establishing fine-grained sediment budgets for the Pang and Lambourn
LOCAR catchments, UK. J. Hydrol. 330, 126–141 (2006).
49. Marttila, H. & Kløve, B. Storage, properties and seasonal variations in
fine-grained bed sediment within the main channel and headwaters of the
River Sanginjoki, Finland. Hydrol. Process. 28, 4756–4765 (2014).
50. McMahon, G. et al. Developing a spatial framework of common
ecological regions for the conterminous United States. Environ. Manag. 28,
293–316 (2001).
51. Kim, I.-S., Chae, D.-H., Kim, S.-K., Choi, S. & Woo, S.-B. Factors
influencing the spatial variation of microplastics on high-tidal coastal
beaches in Korea. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 69, 299–309 (2015).
52. Fok, L., Cheung, P. K., Tang, G. & Li, W. C. Size distribution of stranded
small plastic debris on the coast of Guangdong, South China. Environ.
Pollut. 220, 407–412 (2017).
53. Fok, L. & Cheung, P. K. Hong Kong at the Pearl River Estuary: a hotspot of
microplastic pollution. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 99, 112–118 (2015).
54. Cheung, P. K., Cheung, L. T. O. & Fok, L. Seasonal variation in the
abundance of marine plastic debris in the estuary of a subtropical
macro-scale drainage basin in South China. Sci. Total Environ. 562,
658–665 (2016).
55. Fischer, E. K., Paglialonga, L., Czech, E. & Tamminga, M. Microplastic
pollution in lakes and lake shoreline sediments—a case study on
Lake Bolsena and Lake Chiusi (central Italy). Environ. Pollut. 213,
648–657 (2016).
Articles
56. Hidalgo-Ruz, V. & Thiel, M. Distribution and abundance of small plastic
debris on beaches in the SE Pacific (Chile): a study supported by a citizen
science project. Mar. Environ. Res. 87–88, 12–18 (2013).
57. Fischer, V., Elsner, N. O., Brenke, N., Schwabe, E. & Brandt, A. Plastic
pollution of the Kuril–Kamchatka Trench area (NW pacific). Deep Sea Res.
II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 111, 399–405 (2015).
58. Clunies-Ross, P. J., Smith, G. P. S., Gordon, K. C. & Gaw, S. Synthetic
shorelines in New Zealand? Quantification and characterisation of
microplastic pollution on Canterbury’s coastlines. NZ J. Mar. Freshw. Res.
50, 317–325 (2016).
59. Kaberi, H. et al. Microplastics along the shoreline of a Greek island (Kea
isl., Aegean Sea): types and densities in relation to beach orientation,
characteristics and proximity to sources. In Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Environ.
Manag. Eng. Plann. Econ. & SECOTOX Conf. 197–202 (Conference on
Environmental Management, Engineering, Planning and Economics, 2013).
60. Martins, J. & Sobral, P. Plastic marine debris on the Portuguese coastline: a
matter of size? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62, 2649–2653 (2011).
61. Corcoran, P. L. et al. Hidden plastics of Lake Ontario, Canada and
their potential preservation in the sediment record. Environ. Pollut. 204,
17–25 (2015).
62. Van Cauwenberghe, L., Vanreusel, A., Mees, J. & Janssen, C. R. Microplastic
pollution in deep-sea sediments. Environ. Pollut. 182, 495–499 (2013).
63. Isobe, A., Uchida, K., Tokai, T. & Iwasaki, S. East Asian seas: a hot spot of
pelagic microplastics. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 101, 618–623 (2015).
64. Laglbauer, B. J. L. et al. Macrodebris and microplastics from beaches in
Slovenia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 89, 356–366 (2014).
65. Sutton, R. et al. Microplastic contamination in the San Francisco Bay,
California, USA. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 109, 230–235 (2016).
66. Kooi, M. et al. The effect of particle properties on the depth profile of
buoyant plastics in the ocean. Sci. Rep. 6, 33882 (2016).
67. Cózar, A. et al. Plastic accumulation in the Mediterranean Sea. PLoS ONE
10, e0121762 (2015).
68. Gago, J., Henry, M. & Galgani, F. First observation on neustonic plastics in
waters off NW Spain (spring 2013 and 2014). Mar. Environ. Res. 111,
27–33 (2015).
69. Faure, F. et al. An evaluation of surface micro- and mesoplastic pollution in
pelagic ecosystems of the Western Mediterranean Sea. Environ. Sci. Pollut.
Res. 22, 12190–12197 (2015).
70. Collignon, A. et al. Neustonic microplastic and zooplankton in the North
Western Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 64, 861–864 (2012).
71. Yonkos, L. T., Friedel, E. A., Perez-Reyes, A. C., Ghosal, S. & Arthur, C. D.
Microplastics in four estuarine rivers in the Chesapeake Bay, U.S.A.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 14195–14202 (2014).
72. Eriksen, M. et al. Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of
the Laurentian Great Lakes. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 77,
177–182 (2013).
73. Free, C. M. et al. High-levels of microplastic pollution in a large, remote,
mountain lake. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 85, 156–163 (2014).
74. Mason, S. A. et al. Pelagic plastic pollution within the surface waters of
Lake Michigan, USA. J. Great Lakes Res. 42, 753–759 (2016).
75. Reisser, J. et al. Marine plastic pollution in waters around Australia:
characteristics, concentrations, and pathways. PLoS ONE 8,
e80466 (2013).
76. Nel, H. A. & Froneman, P. W. A quantitative analysis of microplastic
pollution along the south-eastern coastline of South Africa. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 101, 274–279 (2015).
77. Costa, M. F. et al. On the importance of size of plastic fragments and pellets
on the strandline: a snapshot of a Brazilian beach. Environ. Monit. Assess.
168, 299–304 (2010).
78. De Carvalho, D. G. & Baptista Neto, J. A. Microplastic pollution of the
beaches of Guanabara Bay, Southeast Brazil. Ocean Coast. Manag. 128,
10–17 (2016).
79. Esiukova, E. Plastic pollution on the Baltic beaches of Kaliningrad region,
Russia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 114, 1072–1080 (2017).
80. Imhof, H. K., Ivleva, N. P., Schmid, J., Niessner, R. & Laforsch, C.
Contamination of beach sediments of a subalpine lake with microplastic
particles. Curr. Biol. 23, R867–R868 (2013).
81. Zhang, K. et al. Microplastic pollution of lakeshore sediments
from remote lakes in Tibet Plateau, China. Environ. Pollut. 219,
450–455 (2016).
82. Wessel, C. C., Lockridge, G. R., Battiste, D. & Cebrian, J. Abundance and
characteristics of microplastics in beach sediments: insights into
microplastic accumulation in northern Gulf of Mexico estuaries. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 109, 178–183 (2016).
83. Su, L. et al. Microplastics in Taihu Lake, China. Environ. Pollut. 216,
711–719 (2016).
84. Goldstein, M. C., Rosenberg, M. & Cheng, L. Increased oceanic
microplastic debris enhances oviposition in an endemic pelagic insect.
Biol. Lett. 8, 817–820 (2012).
© 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
Nature Geoscience
85. Leslie, H. A., Van Velzen, M. J. M. & Vethaak, A. D. Microplastic Survey of
the Dutch Environment: Novel Data Set of Microplastics in North Sea
Sediments, Treated Wastewater Effluents and Marine Biota (VU Univ.
Amsterdam, 2013).
86. Ballent, A., Corcoran, P. L., Madden, O., Helm, P. A. & Longstaffe, F. J.
Sources and sinks of microplastics in Canadian Lake Ontario nearshore,
tributary and beach sediments. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 110, 383–395 (2016).
87. Woodall, L. C. et al. The deep sea is a major sink for microplastic debris.
Open Sci. 1, 140317 (2014).
88. Naji, A., Esmaili, Z. & Khan, F. R. Plastic debris and microplastics along the
beaches of the Strait of Hormuz, Persian Gulf. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 114,
1057–1062 (2017).
89. Liebezeit, G. & Dubaish, F. Microplastics in beaches of the East Frisian
Islands Spiekeroog and Kachelotplate. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 89,
213–217 (2012).
90. Claessens, M., Meester, S. D., Landuyt, L. V., Clerck, K. D. & Janssen, C. R.
Occurrence and distribution of microplastics in marine sediments along the
Belgian coast. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62, 2199–2204 (2011).
91. Chae, D.-H., Kim, I.-S., Kim, S.-K., Song, Y. K. & Shim, W. J. Abundance
and distribution characteristics of microplastics in surface seawaters of the
Incheon/Kyeonggi Coastal Region. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 69,
269–278 (2015).
92. Yu, X., Peng, J., Wang, J., Wang, K. & Bao, S. Occurrence of microplastics in
the beach sand of the Chinese inner sea: the Bohai Sea. Environ. Pollut.
214, 722–730 (2016).
93. 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. 69, 279–287 (2015).
94. Mohamed Nor, N. H. & Obbard, J. P. Microplastics in Singapore’s coastal
mangrove ecosystems. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 79, 278–283 (2014).
95. Zobkov, M. & Esiukova, E. Microplastics in Baltic bottom sediments:
quantification procedures and first results. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 114,
724–732 (2017).
96. Van Cauwenberghe, L., Claessens, M., Vandegehuchte, M. B., Mees, J. &
Janssen, C. R. Assessment of marine debris on the Belgian Continental
Shelf. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 73, 161–169 (2013).
97. Zhao, S., Zhu, L., Wang, T. & Li, D. Suspended microplastics in the surface
water of the Yangtze Estuary System, China: first observations on
occurrence, distribution. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 86, 562–568 (2014).
98. Wang, W., Ndungu, A. W., Li, Z. & Wang, J. Microplastics pollution in
inland freshwaters of China: a case study in urban surface waters of Wuhan,
China. Sci. Total Environ. 575, 1369–1374 (2017).
99. Desforges, J.-P. W., Galbraith, M., Dangerfield, N. & Ross, P. S. Widespread
distribution of microplastics in subsurface seawater in the NE Pacific
Ocean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 79, 94–99 (2014).
100. Dekiff, J. H., Remy, D., Klasmeier, J. & Fries, E. Occurrence and spatial
distribution of microplastics in sediments from Norderney. Environ. Pollut.
186, 248–256 (2014).
101. Ng, K. L. & Obbard, J. P. Prevalence of microplastics in Singapore’s coastal
marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 52, 761–767 (2006).
102. Aytan, U. et al. First evaluation of neustonic microplastics in Black Sea
waters. Mar. Environ. Res. 119, 22–30 (2016).
103. Obbard, R. W. et al. Global warming releases microplastic legacy frozen in
Arctic Sea ice. Earth's Future 2, 315–320 (2014).
104. McCormick, A. R. et al. Microplastic in surface waters of urban rivers:
concentration, sources, and associated bacterial assemblages. Ecosphere 7,
e01556 (2016).
105. Lusher, A. L., Burke, A., O’Connor, I. & Officer, R. Microplastic pollution in
the Northeast Atlantic Ocean: validated and opportunistic sampling. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 88, 325–333 (2014).
106. Amélineau, F. et al. Microplastic pollution in the Greenland Sea:
background levels and selective contamination of planktivorous diving
seabirds. Environ. Pollut. 219, 1131–1139 (2016).
107. Lima, A. R. A., Barletta, M. & Costa, M. F. Seasonal-dial shifts of
ichthyoplankton assemblages and plastic debris around an equatorial
Atlantic archipelago. Front. Environ. Sci. 4, 2–18 (2016).
108. Castillo, A. B., Al-Maslamani, I. & Obbard, J. P. Prevalence of
microplastics in the marine waters of Qatar. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 111,
260–267 (2016).
109. Panti, C. et al. Occurrence, relative abundance and spatial distribution of
microplastics and zooplankton NW of Sardinia in the Pelagos Sanctuary
Protected Area, Mediterranean Sea. Environ. Chem. 12, 618–626 (2015).
110. De Lucia, G. A. et al. Amount and distribution of neustonic micro-plastic
off the western Sardinian coast (central-western Mediterranean Sea). Mar.
Environ. Res. 100, 10–16 (2014).
111. Isobe, A., Uchiyama-Matsumoto, K., Uchida, K. & Tokai, T. Microplastics in
the Southern Ocean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 114, 623–626 (2017).
112. Qiu, Q. et al. Occurrence of microplastics in the coastal marine environment:
first observation on sediment of China. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 98, 274–280 (2015).
Nature Geoscience | www.nature.com/naturegeoscience
Nature Geoscience
113. Retama, I. et al. Microplastics in tourist beaches of Huatulco Bay, Pacific
coast of southern Mexico. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 113, 530–535 (2016).
114. Vianello, A. et al. Microplastic particles in sediments of Lagoon of Venice,
Italy: first observations on occurrence, spatial patterns and identification.
Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 130, 54–61 (2013).
115. Thompson, R. C. et al. Lost at sea: where is all the plastic? Science 304,
838 (2004).
116. Akhbarizadeh, R., Moore, F., Keshavarzi, B. & Moeinpour, A. Microplastics
and potentially toxic elements in coastal sediments of Iran’s main oil
terminal (Khark Island). Environ. Pollut. 220, 720–731 (2017).
Nature Geoscience | www.nature.com/naturegeoscience
© 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
Articles
117. Dubaish, F. & Liebezeit, G. Suspended microplastics and black carbon
particles in the Jade System, southern North Sea. Water Air Soil Pollut. 224,
1–8 (2013).
118. Enders, K., Lenz, R., Stedmon, C. A. & Nielsen, T. G. Abundance, size and
polymer composition of marine microplastics ≥​10  μ​m in the Atlantic Ocean
and their modelled vertical distribution. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 100,
70–81 (2015).
119. 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. 5, 14947 (2015).