Anthropogenic litter in the environment is a globally pervasive contamination issue with harmful impacts on human and ecological health from exposure to both macroscale (≥5 mm) and microscale (<5 mm) litter. To assess the prevalence, distribution, and drivers of plastic and nonplastic litter in the environment, we assessed anthropogenic litter abundance and characteristics at 10 sites across an urban catchment (Deer Creek near St. Louis, MO) in October 2022. Macroscale litter was evaluated within the channel bed, and stream water and sediment were sampled to assess anthropogenic microparticle content. The abundance of all macrolitter types ranged from 0.03 to 1.42 counts/m2, while plastic macrolitter ranged from 0.00 to 0.61 counts/m2. Plastic films (e.g., bags) were the most common (34.7%) type of plastic macrolitter that we found. Microparticles in water were below the limit of detection at all sites, while in sediment they had concentrations ranging from below the limit of detection to 84.28 counts/kg (with confirmed detections at 6 of 10 sites). Macroscale and microscale litter abundances across the watershed did not correlate, suggesting different sourcing and distribution drivers for the two debris size categories. Macroplastics correlated strongly and positively with impervious surface area and stream discharge, implying a combined influence of land use and hydrology on their deposition. Our findings suggest that the relationship between macroscale and microscale litter might vary depending on local sourcing and transport mechanisms.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmbroseKK, BoxC, BoxallJ, et al.Spatial trends and drivers of marine debris accumulation on shorelines in South Eleuthera, The Bahamas using citizen science. Mar Pollut Bull, 2019; 142:145–154; doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.03.036
2.
AtheySN, ErdleLM. Are we underestimating anthropogenic microfiber pollution? A critical review of occurrence, methods, and reporting. Environ Toxicol Chem, 2022; 41(4):822–837; doi: 10.1002/etc.5173
3.
BarazaT, HasenmuellerEA. Floods enhance the abundance and diversity of anthropogenic microparticles (including microplastics and treated cellulose) transported through karst systems. Water Res, 2023; 242:120204; doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2023.120204
4.
BarazaT, HernandezNF, SebokJN, et al.Integrating land cover, point source pollution, and watershed hydrologic processes data to understand the distribution of microplastics in riverbed sediments. Environ Pollut, 2022; 311:119852; doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119852
5.
BrowneMA, CrumpP, NivenSJ, et al.Accumulation of microplastics on shorelines worldwide: Sources and sinks. Environ Sci Technol, 2011; 45(21):9175–9179; doi: 10.1021/es201811s
6.
Castro-JiménezJ, González-FernándezD, FornierM, et al.Macro-litter in surface waters from the Rhone River: Plastic pollution and loading to the NW Mediterranean Sea. Mar Pollut Bull, 2019; 146:60–66; doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.05.067
7.
ChoY, ShimWJ, HaSY, et al.Microplastic emission characteristics of stormwater runoff in an urban area: Intra-event variability and influencing factors. Sci Total Environ, 2023; 866:161318; doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.161318
8.
CoxKD, CoverntonGA, DaviesHL, et al.Human consumption of microplastics. Environ Sci Technol, 2019; 53(12):7068–7074; doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b01517
DahmsHTJ, RensburgGJ, GreenfieldR. The microplastic profile of an urban African stream. Sci Total Environ, 2020; 731:138893; doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138893
11.
DawsonAL, SantanaMFM, NelisJLD, et al.Taking control of microplastics data: A comparison of control and blank data correction methods. J Hazard Mater, 2023; 443(Pt A)A::130218; doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.130218
12.
de CarvalhoAR, GarciaF, Riem-GallianoL, et al.Urbanization and hydrological conditions drive the spatial and temporal variability of microplastic pollution in the Garonne River. Sci Total Environ, 2021; 769:144479; doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144479
13.
DerraikJGB. The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: A review. Mar Pollut Bull, 2002; 44(9):842–852; doi: 10.1016/S0025-326X(02)00220-5
14.
DewitzJ. National Land Cover Database (NLCD) 2021 Products. U.S. Geological Survey Data Release; 2023; doi: 10.5066/P9JZ7AO3
15.
DikarevaN, SimonKS. Microplastic pollution in streams spanning an urbanisation gradient. Environ Pollut, 2019; 250:292–299; doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2019.03.105
16.
DrisR, GasperiJ, SaadM, et al.Synthetic fibers in atmospheric fallout: A source of microplastics in the environment? Mar Pollut Bull, 2016; 104(1–2):290–293; doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.01.006
17.
DrummondJD, SchneidewindU, LiA, et al.Microplastic accumulation in riverbed sediment via hyporheic exchange from headwaters to mainstems. Sci Adv, 2022; 8(2):eabi9305; doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abi9305
18.
ErüzC, TerziY, IsmailNP, et al.From source to sink: A comparative study of streamside and beach litter in the Black Sea. Waste Manag, 2023; 161:1–9; doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2023.02.025
19.
FinneganAMD, SüsserottR, GabbottSE, et al.Man-made natural and regenerated cellulosic fibres greatly outnumber microplastic fibres in the atmosphere. Environ Pollut, 2022; 310:119808; doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119808
20.
FleuryJ, BaulinVA. Microplastics destabilize lipid membranes by mechanical stretching. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2021; 118(31):e2104610118; doi: 10.1073/pnas.2104610118
21.
García-GómezJC, GarrigósM, GarrigósJ. Plastic as a vector of dispersion for marine species with invasive potential: A review. Front Ecol Evol, 2021; 9:629756; doi: 10.3389/fevo.2021.629756
22.
GasselM, RochmanCM. The complex issue of chemicals and microplastic pollution: A case study in North Pacific lanternfish. Environ Pollut, 2019; 248:1000–1009; doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2019.03.002
23.
GeyerR, JambeckJR, LawKL. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci Adv, 2017; 3(7):e1700782; doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1700782
24.
GjyliL, KolitariJ, MiriF, et al.Assessment of the abundance, composition, and sources of riverine macrolitter of the Erzen River (Albania). Curr Direct Water Scarcity Res, 2022; 5:271–285; doi: 10.1016/B978-0-323-85378-1.00014-3
25.
HasenmuellerEA, BarazaT, HernandezNF, et al.Cave sediment sequesters anthropogenic microparticles (including microplastics and modified cellulose) in subsurface environments. Sci Total Environ, 2023; 893:164690; doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.164690
26.
HasenmuellerEA, CrissRE, WinstonWE, et al.Stream hydrology and geochemistry along a rural to urban land use gradient. Appl Geochem, 2017; 83:136–149; doi: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2016.12.010
27.
HeY, LuJ, LiC, et al.From pollution to solutions: Insights into the sources, transport and management of plastic debris in pristine and urban rivers. Environ Res, 2024; 245:118024; doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2023.118024
28.
HoelleinT, RojasM, PinkA, et al.Anthropogenic litter in urban freshwater ecosystems: Distribution and microbial interactions. PLoS One, 2014; 9(6):e98485; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098485
29.
JambeckJR, GeyerR, WilcoxC, et al.Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science, 2015; 347(6223):768–771; doi: 10.1126/science.1260352
30.
LahensL, StradyE, Kieu-LeT, et al.Macroplastic and microplastic contamination assessment of a tropical river (Saigon River, Vietnam) transversed by a developing megacity. Environ Pollut, 2018; 236:661–671; doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.02.005
31.
LaistDW. Overview of the biological effects of lost and discarded plastic debris in the marine environment. Mar Pollut Bull, 1987; 18(6):319–326; doi: 10.1016/S0025-326X(87)80019-X
32.
LaversJL, BondAL, HuttonI. Plastic ingestion by Flesh-footed Shearwaters (Puffinus carneipes): Implications for fledgling body condition and the accumulation of plastic-derived chemicals. Environ Pollut, 2014; 187:124–129; doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.12.020
33.
LockmillerKA, WangK, FikeDA, et al.Using multiple tracers (F−,B, δ11B, and optical brighteners) to distinguish between municipal drinking water and wastewater inputs to urban streams. Sci Total Environ, 2019; 671:1245–1256; doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.352
34.
MghiliB, De-la-TorreGE, AksissouM. Assessing the potential for the introduction and spread of alien species with marine litter. Mar Pollut Bull, 2023; 191:114913; doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.114913
35.
NguyenKLP, BuiTL. Riverbank macro-litters monitoring in downstream of Saigon River, Ho Chi Minh City. Case Stud Chem Environ Eng, 2023; 7:100306; doi: 10.1016/j.cscee.2023.100306
36.
Piñon-ColinTJ, Rodriguez-JimenezR, Rogel-HernandezE, et al.Microplastics in stormwater runoff in a semiarid region, Tijuana, Mexico. Sci Total Environ, 2020; 704:135411; doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019/135411
37.
PintoRB, BogerdL, PloegM, et al.Catchment scale assessment of macroplastic pollution in the Odaw river, Ghana. Mar Pollut Bull, 2024; 198:115813; doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.115813
38.
RochmanCM. Microplastics research: From sink to source. Science, 2018; 360(6384):28–29; doi: 10.1126/science.aar7734
39.
RochmanCM, BrooksonC, BikkerJ, et al.Rethinking microplastics as a diverse contaminant suite. Environ Toxicol Chem, 2019; 38(4):703–711; doi: 10.1002/etc.4371
40.
RochmanCM, GrbicJ, EarnA, et al.Local monitoring should inform local solutions: Morphological assemblages of microplastics are similar within a pathway, but relative total concentrations vary regionally. Environ Sci Technol, 2022; 56(13):9367–9378; doi: 10.1021/acs.est.2c00926
41.
RochmanCM, HentschelBT, TehSJ. Long-term sorption of metals is similar among plastic types: Implications for plastic debris in aquatic environments. PLoS One, 2014; 9(1):e85433; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085433
42.
Serra-GoncalvesC, LaversJL, BondAL. Global review of beach debris monitoring and future recommendations. Environ Sci Technol, 2019; 53(21):12158–12167; doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b01424
43.
StantonT, JohnsonM, NathanailP, et al.Freshwater and airborne textile fibre populations are dominated by ‘natural’, not microplastic, fibres. Sci Total Environ, 2019; 666:377–389; doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.278
44.
SunX, JiaQ, YeJ, et al.Real-time variabilities in microplastic abundance and characteristics of urban surface runoff and sewer overflow in wet weather as impacted by land use and storm factors. Sci Total Environ, 2023; 859(Pt 2):160148; doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160148
45.
TreillesR, GasperiJ, SaadM, et al.Abundance, composition and fluxes of plastic debris and other macrolitter in urban runoff in a suburban catchment of Greater Paris. Water Res, 2021; 192:116847; doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2021.116847
ZarusGM, MuiangaC, HunterCM, et al.A review of data for quantifying human exposures to micro and nanoplastics and potential health risks. Sci Total Environ, 2021; 756:144010; doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144010
49.
ZhouY, LiY, YanZ, et al.Microplastics discharged from urban drainage system: Prominent contribution of sewer overflow pollution. Water Res, 2023; 236:119976; doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2023.119976
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
