The global threat from plastic pollution

Matthew MacLeod1*, Hans Peter H. Arp2,3*, Mine B. Tekman4*, Annika Jahnke5,6*

1
Department of Environmental Science, Stockholm University, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden.
2
Department of Environmental Engineering, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, NO-0806 Oslo, Norway.
3
Department of Chemistry, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), NO-7491 Trondheim,
Norway.
4
Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany
5
Department of Ecological Chemistry, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research–UFZ, DE-04107 Leipzig,
Germany.
6
Institute for Environmental Research, RWTH Aachen University, DE-52074 Aachen, Germany.
*Corresponding authors email: matthew.macleod@aces.su.se (M.M.); hans.peter.arp@ngi.no (H.P.H.A.);
mine.banu.tekman@awi.de (M.B.T.); annika.jahnke@ufz.de (A.J.)

Plastic pollution accumulating in an area of the environment is considered “poorly reversible” if

natural mineralization processes occurring there are slow and engineered remediation solutions are
improbable. Should negative outcomes in these areas arise as a consequence of plastic pollution,
they will be practically irreversible. Potential impacts from poorly reversible plastic pollution include
changes to carbon and nutrient cycles; habitat changes within soils, sediments, and aquatic
ecosystems; co-occurring biological impacts on endangered or keystone species; ecotoxicity; and
related societal impacts. The rational response to the global threat posed by accumulating and
poorly reversible plastic pollution is to rapidly reduce plastic emissions through reductions in
consumption of virgin plastic materials, along with internationally coordinated strategies for waste
management.

Plastic pollution is found globally from deserts to farms, from mountaintops to the deep ocean, in
tropical landfills and in Arctic snow. Reports of plastic debris in the marine environment date back half
a century (1, 2), with continuing accumulation on the ocean surface over the past 60 years (3).

Emissions of plastic are increasing and will continue to do so even in some of the most optimistic
future scenarios of plastic waste reduction (4). Estimates of global emissions of plastic waste to rivers,
lakes, and the ocean range from 9 to 23 million metric tons per year, with a similar amount emitted
into the terrestrial environment, from 13 to 25 million metric tons per year as of 2016 (4, 5). Following
business-as-usual scenarios, these estimated 2016 emission rates will be approximately doubled by
2025. Scenarios that include concerted, joint global action—such as implementing the Basel
convention to prevent transport of plastic waste to countries with poor management systems, or the
European Union target to recycle more plastic as part of the transition to a circular economy—still
forecast continuous yearly increases in plastic emissions (4, 5).

Accumulation of plastic in the environment occurs when the rate at which plastic pollution enters an
area exceeds the rate of natural removal processes or cleanup actions. Plastic is persistent in the
environment, with rates of natural removal on the scale of decades to centuries (6). Cleanup actions
are not feasible in many areas of the global environment where plastic accumulates, particularly in
remote locations. Plastic therefore fits the profile of a “poorly reversible pollutant,” both because
emissions cannot be curtailed and because it resides in the environment for a long time (7). A central
concern about poorly reversible pollution is that if it accumulates to levels that exceed effect
thresholds, this transgression will trigger negative impacts that themselves cannot be readily reversed
because it will not be possible to rapidly reduce pollution levels below the threshold (8–10).
Here, we identify areas of the global environment that are threatened with impacts from plastic
pollution that is both accumulating and poorly reversible. We highlight the complex characteristics of
plastic pollution that evolve as it undergoes continuous weathering in the environment, and discuss
potential large-scale and poorly reversible effects that could be triggered by continuing accumulation.
Our analysis confirms that plastic pollution fits the exposure profile of a planetary boundary threat,
which we and others have already asserted (10–13), and that actions to drastically reduce plastic
emissions are the rational policy response.

Environmental exposure to poorly reversible pollution by plastic

Obvious plastic pollution occurs where humans directly litter, such as roadsides, beaches, river banks,
and urban estuaries. This type of plastic pollution is, in principle, readily reversible at the local scale
because it can be physically removed by cleanups, and because littering can be curtailed through
public campaigns and with improved waste collection infrastructure. Similarly, the obvious plastic
pollution in and around landfills can, in principle, be reduced with improved site management.
However, even at the local scale, plastic pollution becomes poorly reversible when weathering
processes cause fragmentation into micro- and nanoplastic particles that are not visible to the human
eye. Furthermore, there are several known remote areas of the global environment that are
accumulating poorly reversible, weathering plastic pollution. The plastic polluting these remote areas
is not per se feasible to remove, and pollution levels would only respond slowly to emission reductions
(Fig. 1).

Remote coastlines and the ocean surface— in particular, the five gyres of the North and South Pacific,
the North and South Atlantic, and the Indian Ocean—are well-known global accumulation zones for
floating plastic debris (14) (Fig. 1A). Although a variety of direct, empirical measurements of plastic
pollution in ocean gyres have been made, inventories of plastic on the ocean surface largely rely on
remote sensing measurements of macroplastic and simulations of plastic debris trajectories because
of their huge extent and circulating currents. Less than 0.3 million metric tons of plastic are estimated
to be currently circulating on the ocean surface (14), which represents a small fraction of the
estimated 9 million to 23 million metric tons of plastic that are emitted annually into rivers, lakes, and
the ocean (4, 5). The small inventory of plastic floating on the ocean surface relative to annual
emissions has sometimes been called “missing plastic,” but mass balance modeling of plastic in the
ocean surface layer suggests that weathering (including fragmentation) and sinking could rapidly
remove initially buoyant plastic from the near-surface ocean to the water column and the deep
seafloor (15) (Fig. 1, B and C). Thus, the inventory of plastic particles on the ocean surface could be
quickly transferred to the water column and deep ocean if emissions were shut off. However, plastic
pollution on the surface of the ocean is still poorly reversible because the feasibility of reducing
emissions of plastic to the oceans is low at present. Plastic pollution beached on remote coastlines
presumably has longer residence times than floating plastic, and thus is even more poorly reversible.

The global ocean reaches several thousand meters of depth in many areas, and its water column is a
huge potential reservoir for neutrally buoyant plastic pollution that could have very poor reversibility
(Fig. 1B). The mass balance modelling mentioned above estimated that 99.8% of the plastic that
entered the ocean since 1950 is located below the surface (15). Although most plastic particles are
expected to eventually reach the seafloor (16), a substantial amount is present in the water column
(16, 17). One mechanism for plastic to remain suspended in the water column is through incorporation
into biological cycles. Biofilms that form on the surface of plastic excrete sticky polymeric substances
that facilitate the formation of heteroaggregates of plastic particles with natural organic matter (18).
Buoyant polymers with increasing biofilm loads in the photic zone sink and then float upward again
when the biofilm decays at greater depths (19). The smallest plastic particles, such as those below 10
mm and particularly those that are cylindrical and elongated in shape (such as fibers), will be
suspended throughout the water column as a consequence of drag forces and turbulence, leading to
very long residence times (20). Rates of degradation of neutrally buoyant plastic are expected to be
very slow in the deep water column as a result of cold temperatures, quiescent conditions and, in
particular, the lack of ultraviolet radiation. Thus, plastic pollution of the water column is likely poorly
reversible. Plastic particles with long residence times in the water column are also subject to
subsurface lateral advection in the ocean (16), which provides a global transport pathway for plastic
pollution.

The seafloor is a major accumulation zone for plastic pollution (Fig. 1C), having some of the highest
concentrations of microplastic particles in the environment (16). A recent study indicated that near-
bed thermohaline currents, which supply oxygen and nutrients to deep-sea fauna, also drive plastic
deposition into hotspots of seabed biodiversity (21). The seafloor is mostly a placid, dark, cold
environment that is not conducive to further degradation (22). Thus, the persistence of plastic on the
seafloor is likely very high, with its residence time determined by time scales for burial in accumulating
sediment (23).

Terrestrial soils are another accumulation zone for plastic (Fig. 1D). Sources of plastic pollution to
urban and rural soils are plastic litter, road runoff (including tire wear particles), and atmospheric
deposition of micro- and nanoplastic particles (24). Plastic is also deliberately introduced to
agricultural soils through plastic mulching with polyethylene films and increasingly also so-called
“biodegradable” plastic films, compost, and sludge-derived biosolids that contain plastic residues (24,
25), as well as by the application of polymeric stabilizers against soil erosion (26). Current plastic
fractions in soils can reach up to 0.1% of soil organic carbon (24). On the basis of estimates of sewage
sludge inputs alone (27), it is likely that the amount of plastic in the world’s agricultural soil is larger
than on the ocean’s surface. Mismanaged plastic mulches are a source of plastic to the surrounding
soil (25) and can escape to lakes and rivers. Some plastics that are biodegradable in soils, such as those
made of polylactic acid, exhibit half-lives in the marine environment similar to that of polyethylene
(6). Plastic concentrations in soil are expected to increase because of these ongoing emission sources
combined with extremely slow degradation rates. It is estimated that less than 1% of the mass of
conventional plastic is lost from soils over several years (24), despite conversion into smaller plastic
particles (28). Thus, plastic pollution of soils is poorly reversible.

Ingestion of plastic particles by diverse biota and humans has been demonstrated in numerous studies
(Fig. 1E). Recently, there have been reports that small plastic particles can be taken up from the
gastrointestinal tract into tissues [e.g., (29)], and small plastic particles have been shown to penetrate
biological membranes (30, 31). Current knowledge about absorption, distribution, metabolism, and
excretion of plastic by organisms is hampered by limitations of the methods used (32) and
experimental design (33). However, internal tissues and organs of humans and other biota could
potentially be another location of accumulating and poorly reversible plastic pollution, in particular
for the smallest, nanosized fraction (34).

Altered characteristics of poorly reversible plastic pollution due to weathering

Half-lives of plastic in the environment are very long and highly uncertain, and they depend strongly
on both the properties of the plastic and environmental conditions (6, 35). Polymer types have been
ranked for their tendency to undergo environmental degradation, such as biodegradation rates
decreasing in the order polyesters > polyamides (nylon) > polyolefins (e.g., polyethylene), and
photodegradation rates decreasing in the order polytetrafluoroethylene > polyesters > polyamides
(36). In addition to polymer type, degradation rates also depend on properties of the plastic material,
such as the surface area/volume ratio and whether antioxidants and other stabilizers were used during
formulation and compounding to increase durability. Environmental conditions affecting degradation
rates include ultraviolet radiation intensity, temperature, biological activity, and mechanical stress
(10).

The slow process of plastic weathering begins immediately upon exposure to the environment. The
weathering of plastic proceeds along two interconnected and often synergistic tracks (Fig. 2): (i)
fragmentation and the release of soluble or volatile components, coinciding with (ii) biofouling and
oxidative degradation processes. In the context of the global threat posed by accumulating and poorly
reversible plastic pollution, the physical, chemical, and biological weathering processes are important
because they affect the ultimate removal and residence time in zones of poorly reversible exposure,
as well as the possible impact mechanisms.
Among the first observable indications of environmental weathering of plastic are physicochemical
changes in surface properties, including altered surface charge, and cracking and other changes in
surface morphology due to increased polymer crystallinity. These changes and the concurrent
biological weathering processes discussed below render the surface more susceptible to
fragmentation by mechanical forces (10)—for example, during movement across river beds, repeated
washing ashore in coastal areas, and freeze-thaw action in soils. The increase in surface area that
occurs as plastic fragments into micro- and nanoplastic particles also facilitates the release of
chemicals present in the plastic material, including additives, residual unpolymerized monomers and
oligomers (10), and degradation products of the plastic polymer itself (37). Thus, over time, plastic in
the environment produces an increasingly diverse lineage of small particles and chemicals that are
more mobile and accessible for uptake into wider ranges of biota than the material that originally
entered the environment.

Synergistic biological weathering starts even before the fragmentation process is initiated (Fig. 2).
Within hours of entering a river, lake, ocean, or likely also soil, an “eco-corona” of organic matter and
microorganisms forms around plastic particles, ultimately leading to colonization of the plastic surface
that occurs within days (38). These so-called biofilms affect the fate of plastic pollution in diverse ways.
They can favor colonization by sessile organisms, excrete extracellular enzymes that break down the
plastic surface, and form extracellular polymeric substances that facilitate aggregation. Biofilms also
lead to the alteration of buoyancy as described above, provide an additional sorption phase for
chemicals, and slow down the sorption/desorption kinetics of chemicals. By shielding the particle’s
surface from ultraviolet radiation and other factors that facilitate weathering, biofilms decrease rates
of fragmentation. Uptake of plastic particles coated with biofilm is also enhanced when selective
feeders mistake them for food. After ingestion, weathering of plastic may continue because particles
can fragment in the digestive system (39).

Considering how environmental properties influence plastic weathering (6, 10, 12, 35), it is possible
to rank how rapidly weathering likely proceeds in the accumulation zones in Fig. 1. The most rapid
weathering likely occurs on the ocean surface (Fig. 1A), driven by direct exposure to sunlight,
mechanical forces (wind, waves), and temperature variations. Plastic in surface soils (Fig. 1D) also has
direct exposure to sunlight and a high concentration of active biological organisms. Weathering rates
likely decrease with increasing depth in the water column (Fig. 1, B and C) and in deeper soils and
sediments that plastics reach through tilling and bioturbation (Fig. 1D). Degradation of plastic within
the body (Fig. 1E) is possibly dependent on the presence of suitable enzymes, their specific location in
tissues, and excretion rates within the gastrointestinal tract, but this remains a research frontier.

Potential impacts of global plastic pollution

Conventional ecotoxicological risk assessment (comparing measured or predicted levels in the
environment to toxicological effect thresholds derived from standard tests) indicates that plastic
currently poses a risk to only a small, although likely increasing, fraction of the global ocean (40).
However, the limitations of current ecotoxicological risk assessment applied to plastic are numerous
[e.g., (41)]. The forms of plastic pollution that induce toxic effects, and thus the relevant exposure
concentrations, are unknown, although they may already exceed proposed impact thresholds in
hotspots (40, 42). Exposure concentrations of small plastic particles are likely underestimated because
of the continuous fragmentation of weathering plastic and the scarcity of reliable measurements,
especially for nanoplastic. Considered in a broad context, the potential impacts of accumulating and
poorly reversible plastic pollution of the global environment are wide-reaching, encompassing both
geophysical and biological impacts, and could put added pressure on ecosystems already exposed to
multiple stresses (Fig. 3A).
Geophysical impacts
Plastic pollution can influence the global carbon cycle both directly and indirectly. The direct effect is
due to the small but non-negligible fraction of the 280 million to 360 million metric tons of fossil
carbon converted into plastic per year (43) that degrades or is industrially converted (e.g., by
incineration or landfilling) to carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases. Even if the world
completely ceases to use fossil fuels, emissions of greenhouse gases from plastic degradation and
waste management will continue for centuries. However, indirect effects of plastic on the carbon cycle
through effects on the homeostasis of the marine carbon pump are potentially larger than the direct
effects of greenhouse gas emissions. It was recently estimated that 7.8 million metric tons of plastic
carbon per year currently reach the seafloor (44). Before settling on the seafloor, as previously
described, a large fraction of the plastic will be suspended in the water column as neutrally buoyant
particles (10, 45). Accumulating concentrations of suspended plastic particles and heteroaggregates
could affect the food sources or the turbidity levels in the habitats of cyanobacteria and phytoplankton
communities. Decreasing populations of bacterial communities would lead to reduced carbon
sequestration from the atmosphere. The nonsequestered carbon, which would otherwise be
contributing to the marine food web, could instead remain in the atmosphere, where it would
contribute to global warming (45). Meanwhile, the increasing loads of carbon in nonbuoyant plastic
will sink, with one estimate indicating that the amount of plastic carbon being buried in seabed
sediments could exceed that of natural organic carbon by 2050 in hot-spot regions (44).

The mechanisms that affect the marine carbon pump also affect nutrient cycling in diverse ways (46).
Nitrogen and phosphorus cycling were shown to be affected by biofilms on microplastic in aquatic
systems (47). Similarly, a microcosm experiment demonstrated that the presence of microplastic
altered nitrogen cycling in sediment (48). Microplastic incorporated into marine particles may thus
affect the delivery of nutrients to deep sea environments (18), and Earth system modeling
demonstrates that there is a potential for zooplankton grazing on microplastic to accelerate the global
decline of oxygen in the ocean (49).

Increased loads of plastic can lead to longterm changes in soil properties, such as waterholding
capacity, microbial activity and diversity, nutrient availability, and soil structure (25). The
accumulation of plastic in soils can lead to effects on plant performance and plant diversity (50) as
well as potentially irreversible soil degradation (51). The formation of (micro)plastic hotspots on
seabeds could have analogous impacts by changing sediment structure and composition to an extent
that sediment fertility and the marine carbon pump are affected. The quantity of global soils and
sediments irreversibly affected by accumulating plastic can only increase in the future.

Biological impacts
Wildlife encounters with macroplastic debris have been widely reported. A recent analysis listed 914
marine megafaunal species (including 226 species of seabirds, 86 species of marine mammals, all
species of sea turtles, and 430 species of fishes) affected through entanglement and/or ingestion (52).
For endangered species, not more than a few encounters are required to threaten population-level
consequences. Entanglement and ingestion of plastic jeopardizes 17% of the 693 species on the
International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List (53). In the northeastern Mediterranean,
entanglement of endangered monk seals (Monachus monachus, 600 to 700 individuals in total) with
fishing gear was identified as the second most frequent cause of mortality after deliberate killing (54).

Colonization of plastic surfaces is another type of interaction with organisms. A single tsunami event
initiated transoceanic dispersal of nearly 300 living species over 6 years via colonization on rafting
debris, indicating the potential for plastic pollution to facilitate species invasions during extreme
weather events (55). Such complex, system-level impacts of plastic pollution indicate that more effects
on species and ecosystems remain to be discovered.

Diverse impacts caused by ingestion of microplastic due to particle and chemical-related toxicity have
been reported, including physical injury, changes in physiology, and impaired feeding, growth,
reproduction, and oxygen consumption rates (56). In sediments, concentrations of macro- and
nanoplastics above 0.5% were found to affect macroinvertebrate abundance (57). Additives leaching
from plastic can also contribute to (eco)toxicological effects. One example is the concern about
phthalate esters added to polyethylene mulches that are taken up in grains destined for consumption
by humans and livestock (58). Another is the recent discovery that a phototransformation product of
a ubiquitous antioxidant used in tire rubber causes acute mortality of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus
kisutch) after stormwater runoff events (59).
Multiple stressors
A less-explored aspect of plastic pollution is how it can act in concert with other geophysical,
biological, and chemical stressors to cause impacts. For instance, potential impacts on fisheries from
overfishing and climate change could be exacerbated by impacts from plastic on carbon cycling,
entanglement, and ingestion as well as toxicity. Aquatic organisms forced into adaptation due to
habitat change related to altered temperatures, nutrient supply, and chemical exposure experience
plastic as an additional stressor that may contribute to biodiversity loss. Soil biodiversity, as well as
the limited supply of fertile soils, could be further reduced through long-term effects of accumulating
plastic, which could require wetland destruction and deforestation to obtain new fertile soils. Arid
areas of the world, where surface water is in short supply, may find their remaining freshwater
ecosystem resources further compromised by plastic pollution, specifically through toxic plastic
additives (e.g., phthalate esters, heavy metals, bisphenols, poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances) and
small plastic particles that may penetrate through drinking water production systems.

Confronting the global threat from plastic pollution

The public considers plastic pollution to be a serious environmental and public health issue (60, 61)
(Fig. 3). Important reasons for this perception are first-hand experiences of visible plastic pollution
(62) and increasing public concern regarding exposure to plastic-associated chemicals such as
bisphenol A (63). Public concern about plastic pollution has inspired policy initiatives to address
marine microplastic that invoke the precautionary principle because the risks to humans from
microplastic have not yet been shown (60, 64), and risks to some ecosystems have only recently been
demonstrated [e.g., for coral reefs (65)]. Largely missing from this debate, however, is assessment of
the potential for delayed toxicological effects due to weathering-related degradation, or additionally
nontoxicological impacts on carbon and nutrient cycles, soil and sediment fertility, and biodiversity.
These impacts may extend long after emissions cease if they are caused by poorly reversible plastic
pollution (Fig. 3, B and C), or exceed a tipping point that causes a regime shift. In the case of possible
(eco) toxicity of plastic, the potential for delayed effects has been referred to as a “global toxicity
debt” (28).

Better understanding and management of the threat posed by plastic pollution in the environment
requires research that focuses on environmental processes and fate, including the accumulation of
small weathered particles (41), associated chemicals, and the formation of biofilms and
heteroaggregates with natural organic carbon (10). Of particular relevance is a better understanding
of these processes within the areas where poorly reversible plastic pollution is currently accumulating
(Fig. 1). Discovery-oriented research aimed at identifying currently unknown impacts of weathering
plastic on biogeochemical cycling and organism health is also needed.

The rational strategy to confront the potential for poorly reversible global impacts to arise from plastic
pollution is to curtail emissions of plastic to the environment as rapidly and comprehensively as
possible, following the prescription for transformative change suggested by Borrelle et al. (4). Precise
and focused regulation has been called for to limit production and use of virgin plastic and to foster
innovation to more benign yet competitive materials (66). Further actions could include expanding
the Basel convention to only allow export of plastic waste to countries with better recycling
infrastructure than the exporting country, eliminating hazardous chemicals in plastic to increase
recycling potential, and developing recycling/reuse targets nationally and globally. Broader societal
strategies should include eliminating unnecessary uses of plastic and encouraging behaviors that
minimize plastic waste. Emerging inventories of sources of plastic pollution to the environment (27)
can support these efforts by identifying plastic products and supply chains that should be targeted.
The threat that plastic being emitted today could cause global-scale, poorly reversible impacts in the
future is compelling motivation to take targeted actions to reduce emissions now.

Acknowledgements
We thank our colleagues, previous and current project partners for stimulating discussions.

Funding
This research was supported by the Joint Programming Initiative Healthy and Productive Seas and
Oceans (JPI Oceans) project WEATHER-MIC (Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural
Sciences and Spatial Planning, FORMAS, Grant #942 2015 1866, Research Council of Norway, RCN,
Grant #257433/E40, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, BMBF, Grant #03F0733A),
the BMBF project MICRO-FATE (Grant #03G0268TA) and the RCN project SLUDGEFFECT (Grant
#302371/E10). M.B.T was funded by the Helmholtz-funded infrastructure program FRAM (Frontiers in
Arctic Marine Research).

Author contributions
This paper is the product of equal efforts and intellectual contributions by all four authors during
conceptual development, writing, revision and editing. M.B.T. took main responsibility for the
literature research and A.J. designed the figures.

Competing interests:
The authors declare no competing interests.

REFERENCES
1. E. J. Carpenter, S. J. Anderson, G. R. Harvey, H. P. Miklas, B. B. Peck, Polystyrene spherules in
coastal waters. Science 178, 749-750 (1972).

2. E. J. Carpenter, K. L. Smith, Jr., Plastics on the Sargasso sea surface. Science 175, 1240-1241
(1972).

3. C. Ostle, R. C. Thompson, D. Broughton, L. Gregory, M. Wootton, D. G. Johns, The rise in ocean

plastics evidenced from a 60-year time series. Nature Communications 10, 1622 (2019).

4. S. B. Borrelle, J. Ringma, K. L. Law, C. C. Monnahan, L. Lebreton, A. McGivern, E. Murphy, J.

Jambeck, G. H. Leonard, M. A. Hilleary, M. Eriksen, H. P. Possingham, H. De Frond, L. R. Gerber, B.
Polidoro, A. Tahir, M. Bernard, N. Mallos, M. Barnes, C. M. Rochman, Predicted growth in plastic waste
exceeds efforts to mitigate plastic pollution. Science 369, 1515-1518 (2020).

5. W. W. Y. Lau, Y. Shiran, R. M. Bailey, E. Cook, M. R. Stuchtey, J. Koskella, C. A. Velis, L. Godfrey,

J. Boucher, M. B. Murphy, R. C. Thompson, E. Jankowska, A. Castillo Castillo, T. D. Pilditch, B. Dixon, L.
Koerselman, E. Kosior, E. Favoino, J. Gutberlet, S. Baulch, M. E. Atreya, D. Fischer, K. K. He, M. M. Petit,
U. R. Sumaila, E. Neil, M. V. Bernhofen, K. Lawrence, J. E. Palardy, Evaluating scenarios toward zero
plastic pollution. Science 369, 1455-1461 (2020).

6. A. Chamas, H. Moon, J. Zheng, Y. Qiu, T. Tabassum, J. H. Jang, M. Abu-Omar, S. L. Scott, S. Suh,

Degradation Rates of Plastics in the Environment. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 8, 3494-
3511 (2020).

7. P. Harremoës, D. Gee, M. MacGarvin, A. Stirling, J. Keys, B. Wynne, S. G. Vaz, Late lessons from
early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896-2000. (Citeseer, 2001).
8. L. M. Persson, M. Breitholtz, I. T. Cousins, C. A. de Wit, M. MacLeod, M. S. McLachlan,
Confronting unknown planetary boundary threats from chemical pollution. Environ Sci Technol 47,
12619-12622 (2013).

9. M. MacLeod, M. Breitholtz, I. T. Cousins, C. A. de Wit, L. M. Persson, C. Ruden, M. S. McLachlan,

Identifying chemicals that are planetary boundary threats. Environ Sci Technol 48, 11057-11063
(2014).

10. H. P. H. Arp, D. Kuhnel, C. Rummel, M. MacLeod, A. Potthoff, S. Reichelt, E. Rojo-Nieto, M.

Schmitt-Jansen, J. Sonnenberg, E. Toorman, A. Jahnke, Weathering Plastics as a Planetary Boundary
Threat: Exposure, Fate, and Hazards. Environ Sci Technol, (2021).

11. T. S. Galloway, C. N. Lewis, Marine microplastics spell big problems for future generations.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113, 2331-2333 (2016).

12. A. Jahnke, H. P. H. Arp, B. I. Escher, B. Gewert, E. Gorokhova, D. Kühnel, M. Ogonowski, A.

Potthoff, C. Rummel, M. Schmitt-Jansen, E. Toorman, M. MacLeod, Reducing Uncertainty and
Confronting Ignorance about the Possible Impacts of Weathering Plastic in the Marine Environment.
Environmental Science & Technology Letters 4, 85-90 (2017).

13. P. Villarrubia-Gómez, S. E. Cornell, J. Fabres, Marine plastic pollution as a planetary boundary

threat – The drifting piece in the sustainability puzzle. Marine Policy 96, 213-220 (2018).

14. E. van Sebille, S. Aliani, K. L. Law, N. Maximenko, J. M. Alsina, A. Bagaev, M. Bergmann, B.

Chapron, I. Chubarenko, A. Cózar, P. Delandmeter, M. Egger, B. Fox-Kemper, S. P. Garaba, L. Goddijn-
Murphy, B. D. Hardesty, M. J. Hoffman, A. Isobe, C. E. Jongedijk, M. L. A. Kaandorp, L. Khatmullina, A.
A. Koelmans, T. Kukulka, C. Laufkötter, L. Lebreton, D. Lobelle, C. Maes, V. Martinez-Vicente, M. A.
Morales Maqueda, M. Poulain-Zarcos, E. Rodríguez, P. G. Ryan, A. L. Shanks, W. J. Shim, G. Suaria, M.
Thiel, T. S. van den Bremer, D. Wichmann, The physical oceanography of the transport of floating
marine debris. Environmental Research Letters 15, 023003 (2020).

15. A. A. Koelmans, M. Kooi, K. L. Law, E. van Sebille, All is not lost: deriving a top-down mass
budget of plastic at sea. Environmental Research Letters 12, 114028 (2017).

16. M. B. Tekman, C. Wekerle, C. Lorenz, S. Primpke, C. Hasemann, G. Gerdts, M. Bergmann, Tying

up Loose Ends of Microplastic Pollution in the Arctic: Distribution from the Sea Surface through the
Water Column to Deep-Sea Sediments at the HAUSGARTEN Observatory. Environ Sci Technol 54,
4079-4090 (2020).

17. C. A. Choy, B. H. Robison, T. O. Gagne, B. Erwin, E. Firl, R. U. Halden, J. A. Hamilton, K. Katija,

S. E. Lisin, C. Rolsky, S. V. H. K, The vertical distribution and biological transport of marine microplastics
across the epipelagic and mesopelagic water column. Sci Rep 9, 7843 (2019).

18. R. Coyle, G. Hardiman, K. O. Driscoll, Microplastics in the marine environment: A review of

their sources, distribution processes, uptake and exchange in ecosystems. Case Studies in Chemical
and Environmental Engineering 2, 100010 (2020).

19. S. Ye, A. L. Andrady, Fouling of floating plastic debris under Biscayne Bay exposure conditions.
Marine pollution bulletin 22, 608-613 (1991).

20. L. Khatmullina, I. Isachenko, Settling velocity of microplastic particles of regular shapes. Mar
Pollut Bull 114, 871-880 (2017).
21. I. A. Kane, M. A. Clare, E. Miramontes, R. Wogelius, J. J. Rothwell, P. Garreau, F. Pohl, Seafloor
microplastic hotspots controlled by deep-sea circulation. Science 368, 1140-1145 (2020).

22. M. B. Tekman, T. Krumpen, M. Bergmann, Marine litter on deep Arctic seafloor continues to
increase and spreads to the North at the HAUSGARTEN observatory. Deep Sea Research Part I:
Oceanographic Research Papers 120, 88-99 (2017).

23. J. A. Brandon, W. Jones, M. D. Ohman, Multidecadal increase in plastic particles in coastal

ocean sediments. Sci Adv 5, eaax0587 (2019).

24. M. Blasing, W. Amelung, Plastics in soil: Analytical methods and possible sources. Sci Total
Environ 612, 422-435 (2018).

25. S. Bandopadhyay, L. Martin-Closas, A. M. Pelacho, J. M. DeBruyn, Biodegradable Plastic Mulch

Films: Impacts on Soil Microbial Communities and Ecosystem Functions. Front Microbiol 9, 819 (2018).

26. H. P. H. Arp, H. Knutsen. (ACS Publications, 2019).

27. S. Galafassi, L. Nizzetto, P. Volta, Plastic sources: A survey across scientific and grey literature
for their inventory and relative contribution to microplastics pollution in natural environments, with
an emphasis on surface water. Sci Total Environ 693, 133499 (2019).

28. M. C. Rillig, S. W. Kim, T. Y. Kim, W. R. Waldman, The Global Plastic Toxicity Debt. Environ Sci
Technol 55, 2717-2719 (2021).

29. S. Zeytin, G. Wagner, N. Mackay-Roberts, G. Gerdts, E. Schuirmann, S. Klockmann, M. Slater,

Quantifying microplastic translocation from feed to the fillet in European sea bass Dicentrarchus
labrax. Mar Pollut Bull 156, 111210 (2020).

30. A. F. R. M. Ramsperger, A. C. Stellwag, A. Caspari, A. Fery, T. Lueders, H. Kress, M. G. J. Löder,

C. Laforsch, Structural Diversity in Early-Stage Biofilm Formation on Microplastics Depends on
Environmental Medium and Polymer Properties. Water 12, 3216 (2020).

31. A. Ragusa, A. Svelato, C. Santacroce, P. Catalano, V. Notarstefano, O. Carnevali, F. Papa, M. C.

A. Rongioletti, F. Baiocco, S. Draghi, E. D'Amore, D. Rinaldo, M. Matta, E. Giorgini, Plasticenta: First
evidence of microplastics in human placenta. Environ Int 146, 106274 (2021).

32. S. Primpke, S. H. Christiansen, W. Cowger, H. De Frond, A. Deshpande, M. Fischer, E. B.

Holland, M. Meyns, B. A. O'Donnell, B. E. Ossmann, M. Pittroff, G. Sarau, B. M. Scholz-Bottcher, K. J.
Wiggin, Critical Assessment of Analytical Methods for the Harmonized and Cost-Efficient Analysis of
Microplastics. Appl Spectrosc 74, 1012-1047 (2020).

33. C. De Sales-Ribeiro, Y. Brito-Casillas, A. Fernandez, M. J. Caballero, An end to the controversy

over the microscopic detection and effects of pristine microplastics in fish organs. Sci Rep 10, 12434
(2020).

34. M. Shen, Y. Zhang, Y. Zhu, B. Song, G. Zeng, D. Hu, X. Wen, X. Ren, Recent advances in
toxicological research of nanoplastics in the environment: A review. Environ Pollut 252, 511-521
(2019).

35. J. Duan, N. Bolan, Y. Li, S. Ding, T. Atugoda, M. Vithanage, B. Sarkar, D. C. W. Tsang, M. B.

Kirkham, Weathering of microplastics and interaction with other coexisting constituents in terrestrial
and aquatic environments. Water Res 196, 117011 (2021).
36. K. Min, J. D. Cuiffi, R. T. Mathers, Ranking environmental degradation trends of plastic marine
debris based on physical properties and molecular structure. Nat Commun 11, 727 (2020).

37. B. Gewert, M. Plassmann, O. Sandblom, M. MacLeod, Identification of Chain Scission Products

Released to Water by Plastic Exposed to Ultraviolet Light. Environmental Science & Technology Letters
5, 272-276 (2018).

38. C. D. Rummel, A. Jahnke, E. Gorokhova, D. Kühnel, M. Schmitt-Jansen, Impacts of Biofilm

Formation on the Fate and Potential Effects of Microplastic in the Aquatic Environment.
Environmental Science & Technology Letters 4, 258-267 (2017).

39. A. L. Dawson, S. Kawaguchi, C. K. King, K. A. Townsend, R. King, W. M. Huston, S. M. Bengtson

Nash, Turning microplastics into nanoplastics through digestive fragmentation by Antarctic krill. Nat
Commun 9, 1001 (2018).

40. G. Everaert, M. De Rijcke, B. Lonneville, C. R. Janssen, T. Backhaus, J. Mees, E. van Sebille, A.

A. Koelmans, A. I. Catarino, M. B. Vandegehuchte, Risks of floating microplastic in the global ocean.
Environ Pollut 267, 115499 (2020).

41. L. Wang, W. M. Wu, N. S. Bolan, D. C. W. Tsang, Y. Li, M. Qin, D. Hou, Environmental fate,
toxicity and risk management strategies of nanoplastics in the environment: Current status and future
perspectives. J Hazard Mater 401, 123415 (2021).

42. E. Besseling, P. Redondo-Hasselerharm, E. M. Foekema, A. A. Koelmans, Quantifying ecological

risks of aquatic micro- and nanoplastic. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 49,
32-80 (2018).

43. J. P. Dees, M. Ateia, D. L. Sanchez, Microplastics and Their Degradation Products in Surface
Waters: A Missing Piece of the Global Carbon Cycle Puzzle. ACS ES&T Water 1, 214-216 (2020).

44. C. Smeaton, Augmentation of global marine sedimentary carbon storage in the age of plastic.
Limnology and Oceanography Letters 6, 113-118 (2021).

45. M. Shen, S. Ye, G. Zeng, Y. Zhang, L. Xing, W. Tang, X. Wen, S. Liu, Can microplastics pose a
threat to ocean carbon sequestration? Mar Pollut Bull 150, 110712 (2020).

46. T. J. Mincer, E. R. Zettler, L. A. Amaral-Zettler, in Hazardous Chemicals Associated with Plastics

in the Marine Environment. (2016), chap. Chapter 12, pp. 221-233.

47. X. Chen, X. Chen, Y. Zhao, H. Zhou, X. Xiong, C. Wu, Effects of microplastic biofilms on nutrient
cycling in simulated freshwater systems. Sci Total Environ 719, 137276 (2020).

48. M. E. Seeley, B. Song, R. Passie, R. C. Hale, Microplastics affect sedimentary microbial

communities and nitrogen cycling. Nat Commun 11, 2372 (2020).

49. K. Kvale, A. E. F. Prowe, C. T. Chien, A. Landolfi, A. Oschlies, Zooplankton grazing of microplastic

can accelerate global loss of ocean oxygen. Nature Communications 12, 2358 (2021).

50. A. A. de Souza Machado, C. W. Lau, W. Kloas, J. Bergmann, J. B. Bachelier, E. Faltin, R. Becker,

A. S. Gorlich, M. C. Rillig, Microplastics Can Change Soil Properties and Affect Plant Performance.
Environ Sci Technol 53, 6044-6052 (2019).
51. Z. Steinmetz, C. Wollmann, M. Schaefer, C. Buchmann, J. David, J. Troger, K. Munoz, O. Fror,
G. E. Schaumann, Plastic mulching in agriculture. Trading short-term agronomic benefits for long-term
soil degradation? Sci Total Environ 550, 690-705 (2016).

52. S. Kuhn, J. A. van Franeker, Quantitative overview of marine debris ingested by marine
megafauna. Mar Pollut Bull 151, 110858 (2020).

53. S. C. Gall, R. C. Thompson, The impact of debris on marine life. Mar Pollut Bull 92, 170-179
(2015).

54. A. A. Karamanlidis, E. Androukaki, S. Adamantopoulou, A. Chatzispyrou, W. M. Johnson, S.

Kotomatas, A. Papadopoulos, V. Paravas, G. Paximadis, R. Pires, Assessing accidental entanglement as
a threat to the Mediterranean monk seal Monachus monachus. Endangered Species Research 5, 205-
213 (2008).

55. J. T. Carlton, J. W. Chapman, J. B. Geller, J. A. Miller, D. A. Carlton, M. I. McCuller, N. C.

Treneman, B. P. Steves, G. M. Ruiz, Tsunami-driven rafting: Transoceanic species dispersal and
implications for marine biogeography. Science 357, 1402-1406 (2017).

56. N. Prinz, Š. Korez, in YOUMARES 9 - The Oceans: Our Research, Our Future: Proceedings of the
2018 conference for YOUng MArine RESearcher in Oldenburg, Germany, S. Jungblut, V. Liebich, M.
Bode-Dalby, Eds. (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2020), pp. 101-120.

57. P. E. Redondo-Hasselerharm, G. Gort, E. T. H. M. Peeters, A. A. Koelmans, Nano- and

microplastics affect the composition of freshwater benthic communities in the long term. Science
Advances 6, eaay4054 (2020).

58. M. Shi, Y. Sun, Z. Wang, G. He, H. Quan, H. He, Plastic film mulching increased the
accumulation and human health risks of phthalate esters in wheat grains. Environ Pollut 250, 1-7
(2019).

59. Z. Tian, H. Zhao, K. T. Peter, M. Gonzalez, J. Wetzel, C. Wu, X. Hu, J. Prat, E. Mudrock, R.
Hettinger, A. E. Cortina, R. G. Biswas, F. V. C. Kock, R. Soong, A. Jenne, B. Du, F. Hou, H. He, R. Lundeen,
A. Gilbreath, R. Sutton, N. L. Scholz, J. W. Davis, M. C. Dodd, A. Simpson, J. K. McIntyre, E. P. Kolodziej,
A ubiquitous tire rubber–derived chemical induces acute mortality in coho salmon. Science 371, 185
(2021).

60. A. I. Catarino, J. Kramm, C. Völker, T. B. Henry, G. Everaert, Risk posed by microplastics:

Scientific evidence and public perception. Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry 29,
100467 (2021).

61. J. Soares, I. Miguel, C. Venancio, I. Lopes, M. Oliveira, Public views on plastic pollution:
Knowledge, perceived impacts, and pro-environmental behaviours. J Hazard Mater 412, 125227
(2021).

62. B. L. Hartley, S. Pahl, J. Veiga, T. Vlachogianni, L. Vasconcelos, T. Maes, T. Doyle, R. d'Arcy

Metcalfe, A. A. Öztürk, M. Di Berardo, R. C. Thompson, Exploring public views on marine litter in
Europe: Perceived causes, consequences and pathways to change. Marine Pollution Bulletin 133, 945-
955 (2018).

63. T. Jansen, L. Claassen, I. van Kamp, D. R. M. Timmermans, 'All chemical substances are
harmful.' public appraisal of uncertain risks of food additives and contaminants. Food Chem Toxicol
136, 110959 (2020).
64. T. Wardman, A. A. Koelmans, J. Whyte, S. Pahl, Communicating the absence of evidence for
microplastics risk: Balancing sensation and reflection. Environ Int 150, 106116 (2021).

65. J. B. Lamb, B. L. Willis, E. A. Fiorenza, C. S. Couch, R. Howard, D. N. Rader, J. D. True, L. A. Kelly,

A. Ahmad, J. Jompa, C. D. Harvell, Plastic waste associated with disease on coral reefs. Science 359,
460-462 (2018).

66. D. M. Mitrano, W. Wohlleben, Microplastic regulation should be more precise to incentivize

both innovation and environmental safety. Nat Commun 11, 5324 (2020).