Next Article in Journal
Accessing Occupational Health Risks Posed by Fishermen Based on Fuzzy AHP and IPA Methods: Management and Performance Perspectives
Next Article in Special Issue
An Overview of Micro(Nano)Plastics in the Environment: Sampling, Identification, Risk Assessment and Control
Previous Article in Journal
A Study of the Impacts of Air Pollution on the Agricultural Community and Yield Crops (Indian Context)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 20
10.3390/su142013099
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparative Assessment of Microplastics in Surface Water and Sediments of Meishe River, Haikou, China

by
Shaobai Wen
1,2,3,
Chunwei Yu
2,
Fang Lin
4 and
Xiaoping Diao
1,*
1
Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Ecology of Tropical Islands, Key Laboratory of Tropical Animal and Plant Ecology of Hainan Province, College of Life Sciences, Hainan Normal University, Haikou 571158, China
2
Department of Environmental Sciences, School of Tropical and Laboratory Medicine, Hainan Medical University, Haikou 571199, China
3
Key Laboratory of Tropical Translational Medicine of Ministry of Education, NHC Key Laboratory of Control of Tropical Diseases, Hainan Medical University, Haikou 571199, China
4
State Key Laboratory of Marine Resource Utilization in South China Sea, Hainan University, Haikou 570228, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(20), 13099; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013099
Submission received: 20 September 2022 / Revised: 5 October 2022 / Accepted: 9 October 2022 / Published: 13 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Far More than Meets the Eye: Microplastics Pollution from Terrestrial to Marine Environment and Its Risks)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Meishe River is the longest urban river in Haikou. The level of microplastics pollution in this river may affect the ecological balance, and can have an adverse effect on human health. Thus, it is essential to gain a comprehensive understanding of the microplastics pollution in the river to ensure safety of the human living environment. Microscopic examination and Micro-Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (μ-FTIR) were used to investigate the distribution and characteristics of microplastic pollution in surface water and sediments of the Meishe River. The results revealed that microplastics extracted from Meishe River mainly consisted of polyethylene (PE) and poly octadecyl acrylate (POA), and the abundance of microplastics in the surface water and sediments lay in the range of 3–10 items/L and 61–205 items/100 g dry weight, respectively. With respect to shapes and colors of microplastics, among the micro plastics found in the surface water, 74% were fiber and 57% were white colored, while among those in the sediments, 88% were fiber and 55% were of white colored. In terms of particle size, microplastics with the particle size of 0.1–0.5 mm were the most abundant (49% approximately) in surface water, while the microplastics with particle size 1.0–5.0 mm were dominant (74%) in the sediments. The results clearly showed that the Meishe River was polluted by microplastics, which may eventually flow into the nearby sea and adversely affect the sea environment. Consequently, some organisms in the urban river may be adversely affected.

1. Introduction

Microplastics are plastic particles or debris with a particle size less than 5 mm [1]. Recently, the fate of microplastics in the water environment has become a hot topic of research [2]. Release of microplastics in the environment can have various adverse effects on the organisms as well as human beings. Due to their small sizes, microplastics can be easily ingested by the marine organisms as food, and eventually enter the food chain [3]. In addition to adsorbtion of hydrophobic organic pollutants [4] and heavy metals [5] present in water, microplastics can also provide long-term stable habitats for various harmful microorganisms and pathogens [6], since these processes may also happen in freshwater ecosystems. Li et al. reported that the microplastics adsorbs several commonly used antibiotics better in fresh water than in seawater [7]. Recent studies have shown that polylactic acid microplastics can lead to behavioral changes and biochemical dysfunction in adult zebrafish [8] and larval zebrafish [9]. So, the abundance of microplastics in freshwater needs attention [10].
Previous studies have reported that microplastics found in the oceans mainly come from the rivers polluted with microplastics [11]. It had been estimated that, every year approximately 1.15–2.41 million tons of plastics are added into the oceans by the rivers [12]. In recent years, urban rivers are being considered as important “sinks” for urban microplastics emissions, with higher concentrations than those in the open ocean [13,14]. Luo et al. reported that, in Shanghai, microplastics are found in abundance in the urban river (i.e., 1.8–2.4 items/L) higher than that in estuarine and nearshore waters (0.9 items/L) [15]. Sediments from the urban freshwater rivers may serve as a reservoir of land-based microplastics as well as a source of marine microplastics [10]. So far, limited studies on microplastics in freshwater systems have been conducted, and the data on microplastics in freshwater ecosystems are mostly based on analysis of large lakes and rivers, except for the Taihu Lake [16], Qinghai Lake [17], and the Yangtze River [11]. However, microplastics pollution in inland rivers is unclear. The Meishe River is the longest urban river in Haikou and it passes through three districts of the city; its total length is 23.86 km, and the area of the watershed is 501,600 square meters. The water flows into the Haidian Stream and finally enters the Qiongzhou Straits. At present, research pertaining to the Meisha River is mainly focused on ecological investigation and restoration, but findings on the microplastics as emerging pollutants are still limited, hence there is lack of comprehensive understanding of the ecological balance in the river.
Therefore, in this study, the surface water and the sediments of the Meishe River comprised the samples collected to explore the current situation of microplastic pollution in the inland river of Haikou city. The abundance, size, color, and shape of microplastics in the surface water and sediments obtained from the four sampling sites were investigated. The polymer types of microplastics were also investigated using micro-Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (μ-FTIR). This study exploring the occurrence of microplastics in the surface water and sediments of the Meisha River will not only facilitate understanding of the current situation of microplastics pollution, but also provide data pertaining to addition of microplastics as pollutants in coastal cities. Additionally, the study will also provide fundamental data pertaining to the assessment of microplastics pollution in urban inland rivers.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area and Sampling

Four sites along the Meishe River were sampled (Figure 1). There were no industrial facilities around the four sampling sites. Except Fengxiang Wetland Park (S2) site, where the domestic sewage treated in constructed wetland was discharged; only rainwater and surface runoff were added into the other three sites. Three water samples and three sediment samples were collected from each sampling site; 5 L of water sample, and 2 kg of sediment sample were collected in March 2021. All sampling tools were cleaned with purified water, which was filtered through 0.45 μm filter membrane (Shanghai Xingya Purification Material Factory, China). In addition, buffers and solutions were also passed through a 0.45 μm filter membrane.
Water samples were collected from 4 sampling sites (Table 1). Three 5 L water samples were collected from each sampling site filtered through a 300-mesh (with pore size of about 48 μm) stainless steel sieve. The sieve was washed with ultrapure water and residues in the sieve were collected into three 250 mL-glass bottles [3]. The sediment samples were collected from each site with a mud-scoop and placed in a clean, wide-mouthed glass jar.

2.2. Extraction of Microplastics

Based on the previous reports, the method of extraction, digestion, and separation of microplastics was slightly modified to analyze their characteristics in surface water and sediments [18]. In brief, the water sample in the 250 mL glass bottle were treated with 50 mL of 30% H2O2 (AR 500 mL, XILONG SCIENTIFIC, Shantou, China.), and the solution was subsequently incubated at 40 °C (120 r/min) for 48 h (ZQTY-70E, Shanghai Zhichu Instrument Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China). Then, the 0.45 μm cellulose nitrate filter paper (Shanghai Xingya Purification Material Factory, Shanghai, China.) was pumped by a vacuum pump (LC-GMP-15, Shanghai Lichen Bangxi Instrument Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China), and dried in a glass petri dish at room temperature until constant weight was attained.
The sediment samples were dried at 40 °C (GZX-9246MBE, Shanghai Boxun Industrial Co., Ltd., Medical Equipment factory, Shanghai, China.). Large pieces of gravel, wood chips, and other non-plastic fragments were removed using tweezers; thereafter, the samples were ground and mixed evenly. Three samples (100 g each) were randomly chosen and added to three 1 L glass beakers. This was followed by addition of 800 mL saturated sodium chloride (AR 500 g, Tianjin Damao Chemical Reagent Factory, Tianjin, China) solution and the resulting mixture was stirred for 30 min. After this, the samples were covered with tin foils and placed at room temperature for 24 h. The supernatant was filtered through a 0.45 μm filter paper. The material on the membrane was rinsed into a glass bottle with ultrapure water. Subsequently, 30% H2O2 was added to each sample and dissolved using an oscillator for 48 h (40 °C, 120 r/min). Finally, the solution was filtered using 0.45 μm cellulose nitrate filter paper with the help of a vacuum pump and was placed in glass petri dishes for further analyses.

2.3. Observation and Identification of Microplastics

The particles were observed under a stereo microscope (Cnoptec SZ650, China) and their size was determined using an eyepiece micrometer. The microplastics were classified into three categories based on their form: fiber, irregular fragment, and film [3,19]. They were also classified into four categories according to color: black, white, transparent, and others. Based on the size of microplastics, the samples were divided into four size ranges: 1.0–5.0 mm, 0.5–1 mm, 0.1–0.5 mm, and <0.1 mm.
Due to the complexity of the structure of the microplastics, their composition could not be accurately determined under a microscope [20]. For the purpose of identification and quantification of the microplastics in the samples, the microplastics were measured by a micro-Fourier transform infrared (μ-FTIR) spectrometer (PerkinElmer FT-IR Microscope Spotlight 400). OMNIC software (Thermo Fisher, USA) was used for comparison with standard FTIR spectral databases, the match degree was ≥70%, the sample tested was determined to be the corresponding polymer.

2.4. Quality Assurance and Control

In order to prevent the contamination due to external pollution, the researcher wore cotton lab clothes and nitrile gloves. The sampler, stainless steel sieve, and glass container were rinsed with 0.45 μm filtered pure water thrice and was dried at 40 °C for later use. No exogenous microplastics contamination was found during the blank experiments.
Microsoft Excel (2010) was used to process the data, and the data were presented as mean ± standard error (SE). SPSS software was used to analyze the difference and correlation of sampling site data. The differences in the abundance of microplastics in the surface water and sediments obtained from different sites were determined using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test. p value < 0.05 illustrated significant difference, and p value < 0.01 illustrated that the difference was highly significant.

3. Results

3.1. Spatial Distribution of Microplastics in Surface Water

The spatial distribution of microplastics in surface water of all the four sampling sites, denoted by S1, S2, S3, and S4, is depicted in Figure 2A, which show significant differences in the amount of microplastics at the sampling sites. The abundance of microplastics in surface water ranged from 3 to 10 items/L. The microplastics found in the surface water obtained from S2 (Meishe River Wetland Park) were the most abundant, and the least amount was found in S4 (Changdi Road).
The shapes of microplastics in the surface waters of the Meishe River were of three kinds: irregular fragments, fiber, and film. The fibers were long and thin pieces, the film was a thin piece of plastic debris, and the other particles were classified as irregular fragments. The results of statistical analysis are illustrated in Figure 2B; fiber and film accounted for the largest proportion in the samples obtained from S1 with 48.57%, followed by irregular fragments (2.86%). In S2–S4 water samples, the proportion of fiber (about 66–96%) was much higher than that of the other types; irregular fragments were not detected in samples obtained from S3–S4. These results reveal the distinct distribution of microplastics of three shapes at different sampling sites.
The microplastics obtained from the four sampling sites were different as illustrated in Figure 2C. The size of 48.56% of microplastics in the surface water of the Meishe River was small (particle size: 0.1–0.5 mm). More than 20% of the microplastics had a particle size of 1.0–5.0 mm and about 20% of microplastics had a particle size of 0.5–1.0 mm. Microplastics over 1.0 mm in size were dominant at S2, while at the other sites, most microplastics had a particle size of 0.1–0.5 mm.
The color of microplastics was also determined (Figure 2D). The majority, 57.17%, of microplastics in surface water were white. Additionally, 18.84%, 17.16%, and 6.83% of black, transparent, and other color microplastics were found, respectively.

3.2. Characteristics of the Distribution of Microplastics in Sediments

The sediment samples were collected from the surface water of the corresponding sampling sites. Although there were differences among the sampling sites, the abundance of microplastics (61 to 198 items/100 g dry weight) in sediments was markedly higher than that found in the surface water irrespective of the sampling sites, with a maximum amount detected at S2, located in the Meishe River Wetland Park (Figure 3A).
Unlike surface water, the sediments were mainly composed of large microplastics including fiber (87.52%) and film (12.48%) types; however, no irregular fragment types of microplastics were observed in the sediments (Figure 3B). As described in Figure 3C, 73.99% of the microplastics had a particle size of 1.0–5.0 mm, and the rest had a particle size of 0.1–1 mm. No microplastics with a particle size of <0.1 mm were found in the sediments.
The color types of microplastics in sediments were also determined as depicted in Figure 3D, which were similar to that of microplastics in surface water. The proportions of white, transparent, black, and other color microplastics were 54.44%, 21.29%, 14.19%, and 9.97%, respectively.

3.3. Determination of Composition of Microplastics

One hundred and five representative microplastic samples were randomly selected and their composition was determined using μ-FTIR. Among them, 46 samples consisted of 11 different types of microplastics (Figure 4, Table 2). For all samples as seen in Figure 5, polyethylene (PE) and poly octadecyl acrylate (POA) were the most common polymer types that were found (constituting 18.42% each), followed by polypropylene (PP, 13.16%), cellophane (10.53%), and poly decyl methacrylate (7.89%). The others were polyethylene terephthalate (PET, 5.26%), polystyrene (PS, 5.26%), and others accounting for 21.06%.

4. Discussion

4.1. Spatial Distribution of Microplastics in Meishe River

This study showed that the abundance of microplastics in surface water and sediment in the Meishe was 5.69 items/L and 122.35 items/100 g dry weight, respectively, which is indicative of microplastic pollution in the river. Current studies on the distribution of microplastics in water have mostly focused on the marine environment [21,22,23,24]. Few studies have been conducted to analyze the abundance and distribution of microplastics in urban inland rivers [15]. Zhang et al. reported that the abundance of microplastics in surface water was 16.67–611.11 items/m3 in the Qin River in the Guangxi urban area, and 0–97 items/kg dry weight in sediment [25]. Another study found that the average abundance of microplastics in the sediments of six urban inland rivers in Shanghai was 802 items/kg dry weight [10]. In addition, Scherer et al. reported that the average abundance of microplastics in water and sediment of the German part of the Elbe was 5.57 items/m3 and 3,350,000 items/m3, respectively [26]. The above-mentioned studies have shown that microplastics are a common pollutant in urban rivers. Considering that the microplastics have small particle size and large specific surface area, they account for the increase in the chemical pollutants in the environment. Studies have shown that river plankton fishes may accidentally ingest microplastic particles from the natural food source [27], and, hence, the potential environmental risks associated with microplastics cannot be ignored.
In addition, the study showed that the abundance of microplastics in surface water and sediments in S2 sites was significantly higher than that in the other three sampling sites, indicating that the pollution due to microplastics in S2 sites was the most severe. On the one hand, there was a large amount of water inflow near the sampling site. Since S2 is located in the Meishe River Wetland Park, every day, about 5000 m3 domestic sewage is treated in the constructed wetlands and discharged into the river [28], thereby increasing the abundance of microplastics in the river. Long’s research on rural sewage treatment plants (WWTPs) with constructed wetland treatment processes in Changsha showed that the removal rate of microplastics was about 68.1–72.38% [29]. Although the removal efficiency of microplastics varied among different sewage treatment plants, there is no doubt that the sewage treatment plants are not able to completely remove the microplastics from water. On the other hand, at the time of sample collection, the Meishe River was undergoing a flat-water period, with the average water flow speed being less, was shallow considering the average water depth, and had gentle river terrain, which caused the microplastics in the water body to quickly settle down at the bottom of the river. A large number of microplastics in the water body were not transported downstream with the water flow, which led to the lower microplastic abundance at S3 and S4 than that at S2 sites.

4.2. Microplastics Pollution in Meishe River

The results showed that the Meishe River contained microplastics with different sizes, shapes, colors, and compositions. It was found that the majority of microplastics was fiber and color was white. Additionally, the particle size of the microplastics in the surface water was smaller than that of the sediments. Previous studies have reported that fibers are one of the main forms of microplastics detected in various water bodies [30]. Luo et al. reported that the fibers detected in the urban rivers and Yangtze Estuary in Shanghai accounted for 66–88% [15]. Similarly, this study showed that the proportion of fibers in different sites was much higher than that at other sites (Figure 2B and Figure 3B). Generally, urban sewage is the main factor affecting microfiber abundance in water, especially domestic sewage from washing [15]. A single garment can produce more than 1900 fibers when washed in the domestic washing machines [31]. Therefore, urban domestic sewage may be an important source of fiber microplastics in urban rivers. Microplastics have also been found in the air surrounding urban areas. It was reported that the abundance of microplastics in the air of Shanghai was 0–4.18/m3, where microfibers accounted for 67% [32]. Microplastics present in the air enter the water body through dry and wet deposition, which may be another important reason for the increase in polluting fibers in the urban rivers [15]. In addition, the main particle size (0.1–0.5 mm) of microplastics in the surface water was smaller than that of the sediments (1–5 mm), and the finding is consistent with that reported by Alam et al. [33]. Studies have revealed that the enrichment of sediments with the microplastics significantly depends upon their particle size [34]. Since the higher density pollutants are retained in the sediments, the sediments in the low flow reaches are likely to become the hot spots of microplastic deposition [35]. The average velocity of the Meishe is relatively low, which may be the reason for the presence of large particle-size microplastics in the sediments.
At present, it is impossible to infer on the actual source of microplastics in water bodies; however, identification of the polymer type may provide valuable information [3]. In this study, different types of microplastics were identified. Microplastics in the Meishe River were mainly composed of PE, POA, PP, and cellophane, which was slightly different from previous studies, in which PE, PP, PS, and PET were found as the most abundant in the water environment [36,37,38]. Meishe originates from the Shapo reservoir. Plastic films, pesticides, fertilizers, and packaging bags used in the farmland around the reservoir are discarded, aged, and degraded in nature; these enter the reservoir with the surface runoff. It may be a source of PE and PP in the Meishe. In addition, the whole basin of the Meishe is located in the urban life circle, close to the main urban traffic roads such as Yehai Avenue, Yingbin Avenue, Guoxing Avenue, and Haifu Road. The microplastics in the urban roads and air enter the Meishe River after being washed by the rainwater. Liu et al. reported that urban and highway rainwater storage tanks contained 17 kinds of microplastics such as PE, PS, Polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and PP [39]. The 11 microplastics identified in this study were mainly composed of these (Figure 4). Many studies have considered cellophane as a microplastic that occurs mainly in the fiber form. Studies have shown that it is ubiquitous in the water system [19,40]. POA is usually used in inks, coatings, and adhesives, and, hence, is widely used in daily life. However, few reports have indicated its occurrence in water. Dyachenko et al. indicated that it was detected in the effluent of sewage treatment plants [41]. In our work, about 5000 m3 of domestic sewage after being treated by artificial wetlands in the Meishe River was added into the vicinity of S2 site every day [28], which might be the reason behind the presence of a large amount of POA in the Meishe River. The above results suggest that the discharge of urban domestic sewage, rainwater washing the urban roads, and the microplastics in the air after being treated in constructed wetlands are the major causes of microplastic pollution in the Meishe River.

5. Conclusions

This study indicated that microplastics pollution existed in the surface water and sediment of the Meishe River in Haikou. The abundance of microplastics in surface water and sediments ranged from 3 to 10 items/L and 61–205 items/100 g dry weight, respectively. The highest abundance of microplastics, 9 ± 0.68 items/L in surface water and 202 ± 2.98 items/100 g in sediment, was found at the Meishe River Wetland Park, indicating that the water discharged from the urban wetland sewage treatment system may be an important source of microplastics pollution. Most microplastics were of 0.1–0.5 mm and more than 1–5 mm size in surface water and sediments, respectively. The majority of microplastics found were of a white color and fiber shaped. Moreover, PE and POA polymer type micro plastics were the most abundant. Summing up, these results highlight the contamination of the Meishe River of Haikou by microplastics and provides fundamental data for further research on microplastics in urban rivers. Therefore, future research should enrich the distribution characteristics of microplastics in the water environment during different time periods and different water periods (flat water period, low water period, and high-water season), so as to better reflect on the pollution status of microplastics in water. At the same time, developing new environmentally friendly materials, reducing the use of plastic products, and facilitating recycling and management of plastic waste are effective measures to reduce microplastics pollution in water.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su142013099/s1, Table S1: Assignments of FTIR spectral peaks of microplastics.

Author Contributions

S.W.: Experimental design, Methodology, Investigation, Data analysis, Writing—original draft; C.Y.: Data analysis, Writing—review & editing; F.L.: Methodology; Data analysis; X.D.: Conceptualization, Writing—review & editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the key research and development project of Hainan Province (Grant No. ZDYF2022SHFZ096); the natural science foundation of Hainan Province (Grant No. 420RC619); and the education department of Hainan Province (Grant No. Hnky2022ZD-12); 2020 Graduate Innovative Research Project of Hainan Normal University (hsyx2020-2).

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have influenced the work reported in this paper.

References

  1. Thompson, R.C.; Olsen, Y.; Mitchell, R.P.; Davis, A.; Rowland, S.T.; John, A.W.G.; Mcgonigle, D.; Russell, A. Lost at sea: Where is all the plastic? Science 2004, 304, 838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Hoellein, T.J.; Rochman, C.M. The “plastic cycle”: A watershed-scale model of plastic pools and fluxes. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2021, 19, 176–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Yan, M.; Nie, H.; Xu, K.; He, Y.; Hu, Y.; Huang, Y.; Wang, J. Microplastic abundance, distribution and composition in the Pearl River along Guangzhou city and Pearl River estuary, China. Chemosphere 2019, 217, 879–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Sathicq, M.B.; Sabatino, R.; Corno, G.; Di Cesare, A. Are microplastic particles a hotspot for the spread and the persistence of antibiotic resistance in aquatic systems? Environ. Pollut. 2021, 279, 116896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Dong, Y.; Gao, M.; Song, Z.; Qiu, W. As(III) adsorption onto different-sized polystyrene microplastic particles and its mechanism. Chemosphere 2020, 239, 124792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Miao, L.; Wang, P.; Hou, J.; Yao, Y.; Liu, Z.; Liu, S.; Li, T. Distinct community structure and microbial functions of biofilms colonizing microplastics. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 650, 2395–2402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Li, J.; Zhang, K.; Zhang, H. Adsorption of antibiotics on microplastics. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 237, 460–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Chagas, T.Q.; Freitas, T.N.; Montalvo, M.F.; Nobrega, R.H.; Malafaia, G. Multiple endpoints of polylactic acid biomicroplastic toxicity in adult zebrafish (danio rerio). Chemosphere 2021, 277, 130279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Oliveira, J.P.J.D.; Estrela, F.N.; Rodrigues, A.S.D.L.; Guimaraes, A.T.B.; Rocha, T.L.; Malafaia, G. Behavioral and biochemical consequences of danio rerio larvae exposure to polylactic acid bioplastic. J. Hazard Mater. 2020, 404, 124152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Peng, G.; Xu, P.; Zhu, B.; Bai, M.; Li, D. Microplastics in freshwater river sediments in Shanghai, China: A case study of risk assessment in mega-cities. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 234, 448–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Yuan, W.; Christie-Oleza, J.A.; Xu, E.G.; Li, J.; Zhang, H.; Wang, W.; Yang, Y. Environmental fate of microplastics in the world’s third-largest river: Basin-wide investigation and microplastic community analysis. Water Res. 2022, 210, 118002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Lebreton, L.C.M.; van der Zwet, J.; Damsteeg, J.W.; Slat, B.; Andrady, A.; Reisser, J. River plastic emissions to the world’s oceans. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 15611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Law, K.L. Plastics in the Marine Environment. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 2017, 9, 205–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Mason, S.A.; Garneau, D.; Sutton, R.; Chu, Y.; Ehmann, K.; Barnes, J.; Rogers, D.L. Microplastic pollution is widely detected in US municipal wastewater treatment plant effluent. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 218, 1045–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Luo, W.; Su, L.; Craig, N.J.; Du, F.; Wu, C.; Shi, H. Comparison of microplastic pollution in different water bodies from urban creeks to coastal waters. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 246, 174–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Su, L.; Xue, Y.; Li, L.; Yang, D.; Kolandhasamy, P.; Li, D.; Shi, H. Microplastics in Taihu Lake, China. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 216, 711–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Xiong, X.; Zhang, K.; Chen, X.; Shi, H.; Luo, Z.; Wu, C. Sources and distribution of microplastics in China’s largest inland lake—Qinghai Lake. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 235, 899–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Lin, L.; Zuo, L.Z.; Peng, J.P.; Cai, L.Q.; Fok, L.; Yan, Y.; Xu, X.R. Occurrence and distribution of microplastics in an urban river: A case study in the Pearl River along Guangzhou City, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 644, 375–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Yang, D.; Shi, H.; Li, L.; Li, J.; Jabeen, K.; Kolandhasamy, P. Microplastic Pollution in Table Salts from China. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 13622–13627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Silva, A.B.; Bastos, A.S.; Justino, C.I.L.; da Costa, J.P.; Duarte, A.C.; Rocha-Santos, T.A.P. Microplastics in the environment: Challenges in analytical chemistry—A review. Anal. Chim. Acta 2018, 1017, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Li, C.; Wang, X.; Liu, K.; Zhu, L.; Wei, N.; Zong, C.; Li, D. Pelagic microplastics in surface water of the Eastern Indian Ocean during monsoon transition period: Abundance, distribution, and characteristics. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 755, 142629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Lin, F.; Zhang, Q.; Xie, J.; Lin, Y.; Chen, Y.; Mao, K.; Diao, X. Microplastics in biota and surface seawater from tropical aquaculture area in Hainan, China. Gondwana Res. 2022, 108, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mu, J.; Qu, L.; Jin, F.; Zhang, S.; Fang, C.; Ma, X.; Wang, J. Abundance and distribution of microplastics in the surface sediments from the northern Bering and Chukchi Seas. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 245, 122–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Zhu, L.; Bai, H.; Chen, B.; Sun, X.; Qu, K.; Xia, B. Microplastic pollution in North Yellow Sea, China: Observations on occurrence, distribution and identification. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 636, 20–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zhang, L.; Liu, J.; Xie, Y.; Zhong, S.; Yang, B.; Lu, D.; Zhong, Q. Distribution of microplastics in surface water and sediments of Qin River in Beibu Gulf, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 708, 135176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Scherer, C.; Weber, A.; Stock, F.; Vurusic, S.; Reifferscheid, G. Comparative assessment of microplastics in water and sediment of a large european river. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 738, 139866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kalaiselvan, K.; Pandurangan, P.; Velu, R.; Robinson, J. Occurrence of microplastics in gastrointestinal tracts of planktivorous fish from the thoothukudi region. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 44723–44731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Li, X.J.; Liu, R.X.; Ao, D.; Sun, F.; Gao, H.J. Comprehensive treatment for black and odorous water body: A case study of Meishe River in Haikou City. J. Environ. Eng. 2020, 10, 733–739. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  29. Long, N.; Zhou, Z.; Yin, L.; Wen, X.; Xiao, R.; Du, L.; Zhu, L.; Liu, R.; Xu, Q.; Li, H.; et al. Microplastics removal and characteristics of constructed wetlands WWTPs in rural area of Changsha, China: A different situation from urban WWTPs. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 811, 152352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Salvador Cesa, F.; Turra, A.; Baruque-Ramos, J. Synthetic fibers as microplastics in the marine environment: A review from textile perspective with a focus on domestic washings. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 598, 1116–1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Browne, M.A.; Crump, P.; Niven, S.J.; Teuten, E.; Tonkin, A.; Galloway, T.; Thompson, R. Accumulation of microplastic on shorelines woldwide: Sources and sinks. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 9175–9179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Liu, F.; Olesen, K.B.; Borregaard, A.R.; Vollertsen, J. Microplastics in urban and highway stormwater retention ponds. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 671, 992–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Alam, F.C.; Sembiring, E.; Muntalif, B.S.; Suendo, V. Microplastic distribution in surface water and sediment river around slum and industrial area (case study: Ciwalengke river, Majalaya district, Indonesia). Chemosphere 2019, 224, 637–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Besseling, E.; Quik, J.; Sun, M.; Koelmans, A.A. Fate of nano- and microplastic in freshwater systems: A modeling study. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 220, 540–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Nizzetto, L.; Bussi, G.; Futter, M.N.; Dan, B.; Whitehead, P.G. A theoretical assessment of microplastic transport in river catchments and their retention by soils and river sediments. Environ. Sci.-Proc. Imp. 2016, 18, 1050–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. 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. 2012, 46, 3060–3075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wang, G.; Lu, J.; Tong, Y.; Liu, Z.; Zhou, H.; Xiayihazi, N. Occurrence and pollution characteristics of microplastics in surface water of the Manas River Basin, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 710, 136099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhang, X.; Leng, Y.; Liu, X.; Huang, K.; Wang, J. Microplastics’ pollution and risk assessment in an Urban River: A case study in the Yongjiang River, Nanning City, South China. Expos. Health 2019, 12, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Liu, K.; Wang, X.; Fang, T.; Xu, P.; Zhu, L. Source and potential risk assessment of suspended atmospheric microplastics in shanghai. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 675, 462–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Castillo, A.B.; Al-Maslamani, I.; Obbard, J.P. Prevalence of microplastics in the marine waters of Qatar. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 111, 260–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Dyachenko, A.; Mitchell, J.; Arsem, N. Extraction and identification of microplastic particles from secondary wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluent. Anal. Methods 2017, 9, 1412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 13099 g001 550
Figure 1. Schematic of sampling sites along the Meishe River in Haikou City.
Figure 1. Schematic of sampling sites along the Meishe River in Haikou City.
Sustainability 14 13099 g001
Sustainability 14 13099 g002 550
Figure 2. Distribution of microplastics in the surface water of the Meishe River, abundance (A), type (B), size (C), color (D).
Figure 2. Distribution of microplastics in the surface water of the Meishe River, abundance (A), type (B), size (C), color (D).
Sustainability 14 13099 g002
Sustainability 14 13099 g003 550
Figure 3. Distribution of microplastics in the sediment of the Meishe River, abundance (A), type (B), size (C), color (D).
Figure 3. Distribution of microplastics in the sediment of the Meishe River, abundance (A), type (B), size (C), color (D).
Sustainability 14 13099 g003
Sustainability 14 13099 g004 550
Figure 4. Analysis of microplastics with μ-FTIR. Abbreviations: PE, polyethylene; POA, poly octadecyl acrylate; PP, polypropylene; PMA, polymethacrylate; PET, polyethylene terephthalate; PS, polystyrene.
Figure 4. Analysis of microplastics with μ-FTIR. Abbreviations: PE, polyethylene; POA, poly octadecyl acrylate; PP, polypropylene; PMA, polymethacrylate; PET, polyethylene terephthalate; PS, polystyrene.
Sustainability 14 13099 g004
Sustainability 14 13099 g005 550
Figure 5. Proportion of plastic types in the selected items. Abbreviations: PE, polyethylene; POA, poly octadecyl acrylate; PP, polypropylene; PET, polyethylene terephthalate; PS, polystyrene.
Figure 5. Proportion of plastic types in the selected items. Abbreviations: PE, polyethylene; POA, poly octadecyl acrylate; PP, polypropylene; PET, polyethylene terephthalate; PS, polystyrene.
Sustainability 14 13099 g005
Table
Table 1. Geographical information about the Meishe River sampling sites.
Table 1. Geographical information about the Meishe River sampling sites.
Site (Serial Number)Geo-LongitudeGeo-LatitudeLocation
Shapo Reservoir (S1)110.3349 19.9639 headwaters
Fengxiang Wetland Park (S2)110.3567 19.9846 stream
Temple of Five Lords (S3)110.3675 20.0139 middle reaches
Changdi Road (S4)110.3615 20.0525 lower course
Table
Table 2. Distinctive peaks of 11 microplastics.
Table 2. Distinctive peaks of 11 microplastics.
NameDistinctive Peaks (cm−1)
Cellophane (70.21%)32821631 1547 1380
Polyvinyl acetate ethylene (89.99%)29272866 1743 1431 13771246
Nitrocellulose (71.63%)16431277 1065
PET (70.89%)2958 1724 1504 1416 13441248 1113 1020
POA (79.11%)2920 2850 1734 1464 1176 1097 1034
Poly decyl methacrylate (82.53%)2931 2856 1732 1464 1244 1171
Acrylates (78.89%)2924 2857 1147 1600 1459 1376 1236
PS (85.90%)3024 2924 2850 1601 1493 1450 1030
PP (96.27%)2958 2920 2870 2839 1457 1377 1165
PE (93.83%)2950 2850 1713 1462
PMA (82.83%)2950 1747 1443
Note: the assignments of FTIR peaks of microplastics are shown in Table S1.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wen, S.; Yu, C.; Lin, F.; Diao, X. Comparative Assessment of Microplastics in Surface Water and Sediments of Meishe River, Haikou, China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13099. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013099

AMA Style

Wen S, Yu C, Lin F, Diao X. Comparative Assessment of Microplastics in Surface Water and Sediments of Meishe River, Haikou, China. Sustainability. 2022; 14(20):13099. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013099

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wen, Shaobai, Chunwei Yu, Fang Lin, and Xiaoping Diao. 2022. "Comparative Assessment of Microplastics in Surface Water and Sediments of Meishe River, Haikou, China" Sustainability 14, no. 20: 13099. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013099

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop