Next Article in Journal
Exploring the Impact of Integrated Marketing Communication Tools on Green Product Purchase Intentions among Diverse Green Consumer Segments
Previous Article in Journal
Layered-Defect Perovskite K3Bi2X9 (X = I, Br, and Cl) Thin Films for CO2 Photoreduction: An Analysis of Their Pseudocatalytic Behavior
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 24
10.3390/su152416840
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

Plastic Waste Management: A Bibliometric Analysis (1992–2022)

by
Rizki Rinanda
1,2,
Yunan Sun
3,
Keke Chang
4,
Rini Sulastri
5,
Xiaoqiang Cui
1,2,*,
Zhanjun Cheng
1,2,
Beibei Yan
1,2 and
Guanyi Chen
1,3,4
1
School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China
2
Tianjin Key Lab of Biomass Waste Utilization, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China
3
School of Mechanical Engineering, Tianjin University of Commerce, Tianjin 300134, China
4
School of Ecology and Environment, Tibet University, Lhasa 850000, China
5
Mathematics Education Department, Universitas Serambi, Mekkah 23245, Indonesia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(24), 16840; https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416840
Submission received: 23 October 2023 / Revised: 6 December 2023 / Accepted: 11 December 2023 / Published: 14 December 2023
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Plastic waste management has emerged as an urgent global challenge, that has attracted significant attention from researchers, policymakers, and stakeholders. Conducting a bibliometric study on this issue aims to provide a holistic and in-depth bibliometric mapping and analysis of plastic waste management, carefully traced through the Web of Science. Expansive data comprising scientific production by researchers, country/region contributions, affiliations, author references, and topical trends were meticulously scrutinized using the VOSviewer software (version 1.6.15). The exploration of bibliometric studies in plastic waste management is still limited, and this forms the basis of our commitment to explore this field in more depth. The findings in this study showed a progressive increase in the number of published works from 1992 to 2022, using the main keyword “plastic waste management” and 13,103 documents were found that were further analyzed. This demonstrates the profound impact of Chinese scientists on plastic waste management research, as evidenced by their prevalence as top affiliated authors. Given the increasing concern and heightened government and societal attention towards plastic pollution and water contamination, effective waste management, with a particular focus on plastic waste, emerged as the most influential keyword. This comprehensive analysis contributes to the existing literature by highlighting key trends and the urgent need for concerted efforts to address the challenges posed by plastic waste.

1. Introduction

The growth of plastic manufacturing since the 1940s has led to a significant increase in plastic waste, with a global production reaching 230 million tons in 2009, which is equivalent to approximately 8% of world oil production [1,2]. Current estimates suggest that around 8 million tons of plastic per year enter the oceans from coastal nations, with projections indicating a doubling by 2050 [3]. The surge in plastic waste presents a pressing environmental challenge. In tandem with the rise in plastic production, there has been a notable increase in fiber and resin production, resulting in approximately 3600 tons of residual plastic in 2015. Unfortunately, 79% of this waste accumulates in landfills or the natural environment, exacerbating the global issues surrounding plastic management [3].
In recent years, numerous investigations have documented the occurrence of microplastics (MP) in various ecosystems, with particular emphasis on aquatic ecosystems, including oceans, rivers, estuaries, lakes, and even Arctic waters and estuaries, among other habitats [4,5,6]. This problem is exacerbated by the ever-increasing consumption of plastic products, especially in the food and beverage packaging sectors, as plastics have become an integral part of modern life. Global plastic production began in the 1950s, reaching approximately 330 million metric tons per year in 2016 [7]. This increase in plastic production and consumption highlights the urgent need to address the environmental challenges posed by plastic production byproducts.
The OECD’s inaugural Global Plastics Outlook in 2022 [8] revealed a significant finding that the global production of plastic waste has more than doubled between 2000 and 2019, reaching a staggering 353 million tons, and even higher amounts are expected over the next 20 years. It is worth noting that nearly two-thirds of this waste originates from plastics with lifespans of less than five years, with 40% packaging, 12% consumer goods, and 11% clothing and textiles [8]. The existence of plastics certainly makes people’s lives easier and more efficient. However, the convenience of plastic not only has a positive impact but also a negative impact. The hazardous substances contained in plastics can be harmful to humans and the environment if they are not treated properly. Despite the significant efforts of governments, businesses, and individuals worldwide, plastic waste remains a critical environmental concern. In response to the escalating problem of plastic waste, governments and organizations have implemented various strategies to reduce and manage plastic waste. It is important to realize that addressing the plastic waste challenge requires a more comprehensive and sustainable approach. In this context, scientific research and bibliometric analysis can provide valuable insights to support better policies and actions to address this global challenge.
Several researchers have conducted bibliometric studies on plastic pollution and specific plastic waste treatment strategies, such as thermochemical conversion, recycling via pyrolysis, and biodegradation [9,10,11,12,13,14]. Based on these studies, a systematic bibliometric analysis of comprehensive plastic waste management is needed especially to illuminate the research trends and identify knowledge gaps in plastic waste management. This bibliometric study offers a thorough review of the Web of Science database by using quantitative methods for trend analysis, author insights, and source evaluation within the 1992–2022 period. The analysis includes two main approaches: performance analysis and scientific production mapping of plastic waste management. A wealth of data including scholarly production by researchers, country contributions, affiliations, author references, and emerging topic trends were obtained via VOSviewer software. Thus, this study aims to contribute to a more informed and coordinated effort to improve the quality of plastic waste management research.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Collection

To collect published articles for this study efficiently, we relied primarily on the Web of Science (WoS) database as our primary source of scientific material. It offers important information that can be used in bibliometric studies, including title, authorship, affiliation, country, year of publication, and keywords. We started our research on 2 March 2023, focusing on peer-reviewed English language journal articles from 1992 to 2022. Our search was conducted meticulously using the keywords “plastic”, “waste”, and “management” including “recycling” and “sustainability” to determine relevant publications in this field. Through this search process, we obtained articles from various databases, including Medline, KCI, and 13,103 articles from WoS, which were downloaded and subjected to in-depth analysis using the VOSviewer software. Furthermore, the metrics utilized to rank the impact of journals, authors, affiliations, and countries throughout the study duration comprise the h-index, total citations (TC), and total number of published papers (TP) [15,16]. It should be noted that an important aspect of our research was careful data cleaning, which is an important step in the context of keyword-based analysis.
The Web of Science database Core Collection (Thomson Reuteurs, Philadelphia, PA, USA) was used for this data-driven bibliometric analysis through a comprehensive literature review that has been used in thousands of published academic studies over the past 20 years, aiming to identify key indicators that can enhance future research [17]. WoS is one of the most transparent and dependable bibliometric tools and the most comprehensive scientific database for visualizing publications and conducting research analysis [18]. Compared to Scopus, Science Direct, and Google Scholar, Web of Science is one of the most comprehensive scientific databases, citation indexing services, and search engines [19]. It encompasses three citation databases, namely SCIE, SSCI, and A&HCI, along with international conference proceedings citation indices. Within its extensive database, the Web of Science covers a wide range of disciplines, including science, engineering, social sciences, and humanities, comprising over 34,000 journals, conference proceedings, books, patents, and data set records [19]. WoS is also a database that collects leading scientific publications and plays an important role in influencing academic decision-making [20].

2.2. Bibliometric Mapping and Analysis

Bibliometric mapping is commonly used to gain a comprehensive understanding of specific research domains and explore the structure of the field, its themes, topics, and terminology [21]. Its extensively employed mapping method is the Visualization of Similarities, which is operationalized as a computer software known as VOSviewer (Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands) [22,23,24,25]. Mapping and analysis of the data were performed using the VOSviewer version 1.6.15 software programs after the database from the Web of Science was downloaded. VOSviewer is used to construct and visualize bibliometric and social networks, such as citation networks, co-authorship networks, and publication databases [19], and generates more coherent and well-structured maps than other widely used techniques in the bibliometric field [26]. It can also identify emerging topics, research frontiers, and core journals in the field of research. The results indicated a burgeoning number of publications over the years, reflecting concerns related to post-usage plastic and its management. VOSviewer employs a unified approach, utilizing a normalized term co-occurrence matrix and similarity measure to calculate the strength of associations between terms [24,27]. This diverse visualization technique highlights distinct facets of literature production in bibliometric maps (Figure 1).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Data Sources

Bibliometric analysis on the Web of Science platform yielded valuable insights into publication trends from 1992 to 2022 (see Table 1). A total of 13,103 databases were sourced from 2063 origins. The dataset encompassed a diverse array of document types, with the majority being 10,700 articles, followed by 1358 review articles, 954 proceedings papers, and 144 meeting abstracts. Additionally, the content of these documents was meticulously examined, with 14,073 additional keywords and 24,994 author keywords included in the analysis. The data recorded information on 46,044 authors that appeared in these documents, with a cumulative total of 40,340 appearances. Notably, 3507 documents were attributed to a single author.
Recent developments in plastic waste management in 2022 have resulted in a large number of emerging contributions, totaling 2556 documents. This corpus covers a wide variety of articles, including 325 review papers, 22 proceedings, 8 editorials, 13 letters, and 1 meeting abstract. These different documents highlight the diversity of scientific exploration and discourse in the field of plastic waste management. This diverse compilation not only underscores the abundance of research outputs but also signifies the diversity of approaches and perspectives introduced by researchers and experts, contributing to the evolving narrative on plastic waste management practices and strategies.
With a total of 13,103 databases examined, the field of Environmental Science Ecology had the largest number of publications (8129), followed by Engineering, Science Technology Other Topics, Marine Freshwater Biology, Agriculture, and Chemistry to Polymer Science (Figure 2). Additionally, we identified the top five journals in the field, with the Marine Pollution Bulletin being the most influential and having published 1007 papers. These findings contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the research landscape of plastic waste management and highlight the significant contributions of various subject areas and journals.
This study provides a valuable resource for advancing research efforts, shaping policies, and fostering collaborative efforts to mitigate the environmental impacts of plastic waste. The results of this bibliometric analysis of plastic waste management have significant implications for researchers, policymakers, and other stakeholders. Changes in keywords and research trends could serve as a reference for researchers to select new topics and research directions in related fields to increase investment and policy support for stakeholders [28]. Policymakers can also make informed decisions based on identified trends and gaps, thereby addressing the pressing challenges in plastic waste management. Recent studies, such as Paquibut’s [29] research linked to the Journal of Environmental Science’s investigation into public awareness of laws on plastic tire disposal, underscore the important role of community–government relations in promoting sustainable plastic waste management. The valuable suggestions from this study aim to improve the overall management practices and sustainability in dealing with plastic waste. Although microbial approaches, as emphasized by Shilpa and Meena [30] in the Journal of Engineering, showed a promise in plastic degradation, further unbiased research, particularly through high-yield transcriptome-based approaches, is necessary to fully understand their potential. Furthermore, all journals provide a comprehensive overview of research contributions and ongoing discourse in the field, encouraging a deeper understanding of sustainable plastic waste management.
According to the analysis results, Web of Science showed the top 10 relevant journals in terms of the number of publications (Figure 3): Marine Pollution Bulletin (1007), Science of The Total Environment (825), Waste Management (769), Environmental Pollution (441), Journal of Hazardous Materials (404), Chemosphere (386), Resources Conservation and Recycling (363), Environmental Science and Pollution Research (317), Journal of Cleaner Production (282), and Waste Management Research (282). With citation records are as follows: Marine Pollution Bulletin (48,278), Science of The Total Environment (33,328), Waste Management (32,837), Environmental Pollution (28,701), Journal of Hazardous Materials (15,279), Chemosphere (13,508), Resources Conservation and Recycling (15,010), Environmental Science and Pollution Research (6616), Journal of Cleaner Production (9025), and Waste Management Research (4713). All numbers are presented in terms of their high quality against the impact of the number of citations in each journal. According to Swain [31], engaging in a bibliometric analysis of a specific journal provides a detailed portrayal of the journal, offering valuable insights that surpass superficial observations. This analysis allows us to uncover the journal’s quality, progress, and productivity in a specific field, country, or region.
Figure 4 illustrates the progression of the top five journals in terms of both publication counts and global citations over five years. The number of citations is more significant than publications because they provide a quantifiable measure of a researcher’s influence, whereas the number of articles published reflects their productivity [32,33]. Notably, the Science of the Total Environment journal has experienced a significant increase in publications from 2018 to 2022, with the highest number of publications reaching 255 papers in 2021. The Marine Pollution Bulletin journal holds the record for the most publications from 1992 to 2022, totaling 1007 publications. In the past five years, it has published the highest number of papers in 2021, with 216 publications. The Waste Management journal, also contributed significantly in 2021 with 89 publications, whereas the Hazardous Materials journal ranked high with 156 publications in the same year. Surprisingly, the Environmental Pollution journal emerged as the leading journal in terms of publication count, publishing the most papers in 2022 with 113 publications.

3.2. Author, Affiliations, and Countries

Figure 5 shows the network of authors and affiliations from various countries, including the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, India, Japan, China, and 166 other countries. The data include author names, affiliations, and publication years that can be used to analyze research trends and identify influences in related fields, and correlations, and compare research results among different countries. The number of citations serves to signify the impact of an author, reflecting the quality of their academic research and publications, and the influence of their affiliation, as well as measures works that receive a certain number of citations explaining the author’s significance to the publication of interest [15,32,33,34]. Citation analysis remains a conventional method in bibliometrics, effectively assessing scientific quality across individuals, universities, institutions, and publication impacts [35]. Additionally, the data can be used to identify potential research collaborations and emerging topics in the field.
The authors’ data obtained through the Web of Science are about 40,290 authors who are related to the topic "plastic waste management" and conducted studies from 1992 to 2022. The results in Figure 6 revealed the most prominent author was Wang Hui who had 62 records in all databases with 33 publications in the Web of Science database since 2005 and obtained 1421 total global citations until 2022 with his highly influential journal article titled “Flotation separation of plastic waste for recycling-A review” with a total of 137 citations and 106 references. The highest total global citations record belonged to Thompson RC who had 19,374 citations in 40 publication records in all databases with 32 publication records on the Web of Science. They started publicizing in 2011 related to plastic pollution and achieved a total of 3136 citations on the Web of Science and 3257 citations in all databases for his publication entitled “Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments”.
Over the past 10 years, a significant amount of research has been conducted on plastic waste management, driven by the increasing recognition of the environmental and societal impacts of plastic pollution. Researchers have explored various aspects of this issue, including plastic waste generation, collection and recycling, environmental impacts, policy frameworks, and innovative solutions. For example, de Sousa [36] stated that the number of publications on this topic has experienced a very significant increase over the years. Zhang, Quoquab, and Mohammad [37] also conducted a visual analysis on plastic and sustainability. The results show that the countries that are most prominent in exploring this idea are China and the United States.
Figure 7 shows the citation numbers reveal where the USA takes the lead with 91,003 citations, closely followed by China with 83,506 citations. England secures the third position with 58,400 citations, while Australia and Germany have 34,147 and 33,493 citations, respectively. India and Spain also demonstrate significant citation numbers with 27,424 and 25,840 citations, respectively. Italy, the Netherlands, and Canada have citation counts of 24,207, 22,338, and 22,120, respectively. France, Japan, Sweden, Brazil, Malaysia, and South Korea follow with citation numbers ranging from 20,030 to 12,728. Switzerland, Denmark, Belgium, and Norway complete the list with citation counts of 9825, 9400, 9131, and 9059, respectively. From the number of publications produced, China produced 2503 publications by 2022, the United States amounted to 1639, in the second position, and India occupied the third position with 1069 publications; these three countries produced more than 1000 publications each. Meanwhile, de Sousa [36] provided different results where China was the most influential country in Scopus with 639 publications related to plastic waste management while the United States was ranked third with 392 publications after India (431 publications), and the most cited country was the United Kingdom with 1124 citation numbers. The development of countries’ scholarly output, the top 50 authorship networks, and the number of citations of the top 20 countries can also be seen in Figure 8.
Citations provide evidence of the extent to which other scholars have incorporated the researcher’s work into their investigations, illustrating their influence and utilization within the academic community. A large number of citations indicate that the researcher’s contribution has had a major impact on the field and has been widely accepted among peers. This recognition positions the researcher as a leading figure in the field, confirming the exceptional quality of their work. In Figure 9, VOSviewer visualizes the interrelation among affiliations by highlighting their contributions to the plastic waste management study. In addition, publications also serve as a metric of research productivity, indicating the quantity of work produced. However, it is important to note that the number of publications alone does not necessarily indicate the inherent quality of the research. To comprehensively assess scientific contributions, it is imperative to consider the relationship between authors, journals, affiliations, and countries, as these factors contribute to the broader academic landscape and collaboration networks, which in turn influence the visibility and impact of research results.
Figure 10 shows the citation records for the affiliations are as follows: the University of Plymouth has a citation count of 23,113, while the University of Exeter has 11,785 citations. The University of Georgia closely follows 11,703 citations, while North Carolina State University has a citation count of 10,186. On the other side, the publication records for the affiliations are as follows: Chinese Academy of Sciences has 501 publications, while both Tongji University and Tsinghua University have 115 publications each. Zhejiang University follows closely with 94 publications, and both Northwest A&F University and the Technical University of Denmark have 85 publications each. The University of Ghent and the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) have 77 and 76 publications, respectively. Shanghai Jiao Tong University and the University of Plymouth also have 76 publications each. Overall, the correlation between the top 20 affiliations with the top 9 authors and top 7 countries can be seen in Figure 11.

3.3. Top Cited Publications

The study of Geyer et al. [3], with 5373 citations in Science Adv, is a milestone in the field of ‘Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made’. This influential journal provides deep insights into various aspects of plastics, including the 8.3 billion metric tons of plastics produced since the 1950s and the urgent need for sustainable solutions. On the other side, Jambeck et al. [38] joined the league of high-impact research with 5167 citations in the Journal of Science, discussing the ’Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean’. Additionally, the study of Wright and Kelly [39] titled “The Physical Impacts of Microplastics on Marine Organisms: A Review”, which has gained 2293 citations, elucidated that a crucial aspect of plastic waste management is comprehending the interactions between microplastics, which possess the potential to harm marine ecosystems and marine organisms. Remarkably, Geyer and Jambeck’s research has garnered over 5000 citations in Web of Science and over 10,000 citations in Google Scholar, underscoring its enormous impact.
The studies of Geyer, Jambeck, and Wright are the three most cited publications related to plastic waste management in the Web of Science. Furthermore, Figure 12 shows the top 50 related publications, organized by their citation counts over the past decade. It turned out that the influence of a publication can indeed be effectively quantified by its citation frequency, thus rendering citation analysis a valuable tool for assessing a publication’s significance and utility. Moreover, it serves as a foundation for policymaking and the development of sustainable systems in the realm of plastic waste management [40,41].
In the area of related literature, the 15 selected publications highlight the widespread problem of plastic pollution in water bodies, which includes microplastics and nanoplastics [42,43]. This environmental issue has become a global concern as plastics, characterized by their durability and resistance to degradation, accumulate within aquatic ecosystems [3,44,45,46,47]. This accumulation poses various risks to marine life, ecosystems, and even human well-being [38,48,49,50,51,52]. The scientific community has dedicated considerable effort to studying the impact of plastic pollution on aquatic environments and seeking effective strategies for managing plastic debris. These efforts aim to reduce the release of plastic waste into water bodies and find solutions to minimize plastic pollution. According to de Sousa [36], a large proportion of these influential publications, comprising eight out of fifteen publications (approximately 54%), address the topic of plastics in water bodies and their interconnected aspects. This proportion underscores the timeliness and importance of the issue. In the next section, we discuss some of the most relevant references.
From 1992 to 2022, several key research areas emerged in the field of plastic waste management. One significant focus is the characterization of plastic waste, wherein researchers have extensively examined the types and quantities of plastic waste generated across different regions and sectors. This involves analyzing the composition of plastic waste, identifying sources and pollution pathways, and investigating the distribution of microplastics in various environments. Over the past decade, a substantial amount of research has been devoted to plastic waste management, driven by a heightened awareness of the environmental and social impacts of plastic pollution. Researchers have delved into various aspects of this issue, including plastic waste generation, collection and recycling strategies, environmental consequences, policy frameworks, and innovative solutions [42,46,53,54,55,56,57]. This increase in research activity underscores the collective commitment to addressing the complex challenges posed by plastic waste and signals a promising direction for more sustainable plastic waste management practices.

3.4. Current and Future Trends

In this sub-chapter, we explore the development of the subject and forecast future trends by examining the keywords of the main authors. These keywords are used by the authors in the titles, abstracts, and keywords of their publications. In particular, some authors emphasize the importance of author keywords as they are important representations of the core concepts that authors want to convey to readers and the scientific community [57]. Frequently occurring keywords indicate areas of high research interest and focus [58,59]. The most influential keywords in the plastic waste management study are shown in Figure 13.
Figure 14 illustrates the progression of keywords over time; subsequently, the researchers classified the keywords into four clusters where Cluster 1 is red, Cluster 2 is green, Cluster 3 is blue, and Cluster 4 is yellow. These clusters were then analyzed using the VOSviewer platform, with particular attention given to the cluster keywords that showed the highest frequency of occurrence. These clusters provided additional insight into the changing trends in keyword usage by authors in their publications.
Cluster 1 of the research landscape is characterized by a cluster of keywords revolving around the diverse fields of plastic waste management, degradation processes, and the overarching theme of environmental sustainability. This cluster shows an increase in scientific interest and research emphasis in recent years, as evidenced by de Sousa’s work in 2021 underscoring a noteworthy surge in research related to plastic waste management and recycling [36]. In this cluster, the most influential keywords describe various advanced methods, processes, and technologies applied in the plastic waste management domain. These include cutting-edge techniques such as pyrolysis, which involves the thermal decomposition of plastics, and mechanical recycling, which is a traditional but important approach to reusing plastics. In addition, chemical recycling techniques have also been highlighted, which are important for breaking down plastics into chemicals from their constituent materials so that they can be reused sustainably [3,46,60,61]. Interestingly, this cluster also includes the words “wastewater treatment” and “bio-polymers”, reflecting a broader scope beyond just plastic waste management. This explains the link between plastic waste management and critical environmental issues such as soil and water quality. Researchers in the field of plastic waste management not only focus on this but also realize the effects of plastic waste on the environment [55,62]. These keywords also indicate a focus on improving the performance, efficiency, and environmental impact of plastic waste management practices by optimizing various factors and parameters.
Cluster 2 of the studies centered on the growing problem of plastic pollution and microplastic pollution, which is a major threat to marine and freshwater environments. This cluster also represents a critical area of concern for scientists, environmentalists, and policymakers. In this cluster, the keywords highlighted the accumulation and abundance of plastic waste and debris in marine and freshwater environments, including coastlines and surface water. Several influential studies [38,42,43,63] have highlighted that the current level of plastic pollution is particularly alarming in aquatic areas. Many plastic particles and fibers are ingested by aquatic organisms, ranging from fish to seabirds and turtles, and become entangled in non-biodegradable plastic waste. The geographic scope of the research in this cluster extended to some of the world’s most impacted marine areas, including the Mediterranean Sea, Atlantic Ocean, and North Sea [38,63,64,65]. Cluster 2 is dedicated to understanding and mitigating the widespread problem of plastic pollution, with a special emphasis on microplastics especially in aquatic ecosystems that pose widespread ecological impacts, highlighting the urgent need for a comprehensive strategy to combat this environmental crisis.
Cluster 3 represents a diverse and comprehensive domain in the research landscape, covering a wide range of topics related to waste management, environmental sustainability, and interactions between humans and the environment. In this cluster, researchers use keywords that span a broad spectrum of subjects. These keywords serve as entry points into the multifaceted field of waste management and its environmental implications, such as the categorization of waste types, for example plastic waste and municipal waste, which reflects the breadth of material and challenges faced in waste management. The concept of a circular economy is also presented in a straightforward manner, emphasizing the importance of reuse, recycling, and waste reduction as integral components of sustainable resource and life cycle management. Energy recovery and waste-to-energy technologies are also important components of this cluster, indicating a strong interest in utilizing the energy from waste materials, which will certainly promote environmental sustainability and resource efficiency. These issues have attracted the attention of many researchers [3,38,66,67]. The cluster also encompasses the broader context of environmental impacts, sustainability, and climate change, highlighting the complex relationship between existing waste management measures and global ecological challenges. Researchers and policymakers continue to study appropriate waste management strategies and policy implementation, especially in urban areas and households, recognizing the critical role of effective waste management in reducing environmental degradation. The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic in recent years has provided a unique perspective to this cluster. Researchers are interested in exploring the health implications of waste management, especially regarding the medical waste generated during the pandemic. This unprecedented situation has underscored the urgency of sustainable development and consumption patterns, emphasizing the need to re-evaluate and improve waste management measures for a more resilient and sustainable future [68,69,70]. Overall, the keywords included in Cluster 3 are dynamic and evolving research domains that cover a wide range of topics in waste management and environmental sustainability, challenges and opportunities presented by waste management measures that have been implemented, and the need to expand the promotion of environmental awareness and sustainable living.
The keywords contained in Cluster 4 are research areas centered on environmental pollution and contamination, with more emphasis on water and wastewater contamination. Researchers investigate a range of interconnected topics and elucidate the profound implications of contaminants on ecosystems, human health, and the environment as a whole, including heavy metals, persistent organic pollutants (POPs), and e-waste [71,72,73]. Heavy metals signal concerns regarding toxic elements that can significantly damage aquatic ecosystems and pose risks to human health. Persistent organic pollutants have long-term detrimental environmental effects. The cluster also contains human health and risk assessment keywords that indicate concerns about potential health impacts from exposure to contaminants present in water and aquatic environments. Researchers have also conducted numerous studies on contaminant exposure from sources such as personal care products, pharmaceuticals, and agricultural runoff, highlighting the complex pathways by which contaminants enter ecosystems and impact human health and the environment [74,75,76,77]. Additionally, Cluster 4 centers on contaminant removal and treatment by exploring various methods, including adsorption, oxidative processes, and the use of activated carbon, to effectively mitigate environmental pollution caused by contaminants [78,79]. These techniques are important for ensuring the safety and sustainability of water resources, and play an important role in maintaining the integrity of aquatic ecosystems. In summary, Cluster 4 is dominated by dynamic and multidisciplinary research on the complex challenges posed by environmental pollution and contamination, especially in aquatic environments.
Returning to the most cited publications, Geyer et al. [3] emphasized the significance of addressing the expanding plastic waste crisis, encompassing both landfills and natural environments, and underscored the extensive environmental repercussions, particularly the proliferation of microplastics in oceans and ecosystems. Similarly, Jambeck and Wright investigated the adverse environmental effects of plastic pollution, with a specific focus on the detrimental presence of microplastics in marine ecosystems [38,48]. These studies advocate and influence enhanced waste management practices and preventative measures, underscoring the need for interdisciplinary collaboration to formulate comprehensive solutions for plastic waste management and the protection of marine environments.
Researchers are pushing their investigations forward through innovative methodologies in the expanding fields of waste and plastic management. Wang et al. [80] conducted research focusing on landfills and the environmental consequences of incinerating garbage along with municipal solid waste (MSW). This methodology known as slag incineration has proven its ability to increase methane (CH4) production and accelerate landfill stabilization. Yu et al. [81] provided a direct attention to microscopic plastic particles in terrestrial plants, offering an effective methodology to detect and manage them. This exhaustive review delves into the intricate interactions between these tiny plastics and plants, highlighting the complexity influenced by multiple factors and their impact on environmental sustainability. A significant contribution also comes from Ma et al. [82], involving an examination of global waste management regulations, especially those relevant to policymakers in China. The research identified challenges such as inadequate recycling guidelines and lack of incentives for recycled materials, underscoring the need for continued attention to construction and demolition waste management in China. Collectively, these investigations shed light on various dimensions of contemporary plastic waste management research and provide relevant solutions for a sustainable future.

4. Conclusions

This study aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the academic research conducted on ’plastic waste management’ from 1992 to 2022. To achieve this goal, we used the Web of Science database and conducted a thorough analysis and mapping of the retrieved publications using the VOSviewer software. The findings revealed a significant increase in the number of publications over the years, highlighting the importance of this discussion, especially in contemporary societies where global plastic waste production is on the rise and poses a major challenge to many. The large number of publications in the field of environmental science further underscores concerns over environmental impacts, especially those related to plastic waste.
The Marine Pollution Bulletin, considered the most influential journal in the field, has witnessed significant growth in the number of publications over the years, with a remarkable total of 1007 papers published from 1992 to 2022. Among the prolific authors in this domain, Wang H stands out with an impressive record of 62 publications and approximately 1421 citations. Additionally, Thompson RC garnered a substantial number of citations, amounting to 19,374 across 40 works. The available literature on this subject highlights the notable contributions of China, as evidenced by the leading authors, publications, and institutes originating from the country. China has the highest publication count and is the second-highest contributor in terms of citations, with a commendable 83,506 citations, closely following the United States with 91,003 citations.
In terms of emerging trends, we highlighted four primary keywords that show substantial influence in the domain of plastic waste management (Figure 15). These keywords play an important role in shaping research trends and significantly contribute to a comprehensive understanding of this environmental issue. There is a growing emphasis on plastic waste management, specifically focusing on the processes, technologies, and treatments involved. In addition, there is significant concern regarding plastic waste pollution, particularly the presence of microplastics, in both marine and freshwater environments, including beaches and surface waters. Furthermore, in addition to the potential solutions discussed in the existing literature, the active participation of consumers, governments, and companies plays a critical role in addressing the significant challenges posed by plastic management. By embracing the principles of the circular economy, each sector shares responsibility for mitigating the environmental problems associated with plastics. As such, their commitment becomes indispensable in our collective efforts to reduce and resolve this pressing issue.
Overall, this bibliometric study serves as a valuable resource for researchers and the public involved in plastic waste management, providing guidance and inspiration for further progress in this area. With the aim of serving as a reference point for decision-making in public administration, this study aimed to facilitate informed and wise choices. In addition, the report aims to inspire stakeholders, researchers, and institutions to address identified knowledge gaps and prioritize future research areas in plastic waste management. The importance of bibliometric analysis in this context is clear as it provides a comprehensive overview of the existing knowledge, illustrating leading research trends, influential authors, and key thematic areas. These insights prove invaluable to researchers for identifying gaps in understanding and areas that require further exploration. By systematically mapping the research landscape of plastic waste management, bibliometric studies actively contribute to collective efforts aimed at reducing the environmental impact of plastic waste and advancing sustainable solutions. This integrated perspective underscores the critical role of bibliometrics as a tool to guide future research directions, policy formulation, and collaborative efforts to effectively address the complex challenges posed by plastic waste.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.R. and X.C.; methodology, R.R. and X.C.; software, R.R. and K.C.; validation, R.R. and X.C.; formal analysis, R.R.; investigation, R.R.; resources, R.R. and K.C.; data curation, R.R.; writing—original draft preparation, R.R.; writing—review and editing, R.R., Y.S., Z.C., X.C. and R.S.; visualization, R.R. and R.S.; supervision, Y.S., Z.C., B.Y. and G.C.; project administration, B.Y. and G.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated for this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Plastics Europe. Plastics-the Facts 2010. An Analysis of European Plastics Production, Demand and Recovery for 2009. 2010. Available online: https://www.plasticseurope.org/en/resources/publications/171-plastics-facts-2010. (accessed on 30 May 2023).
  2. Thompson, R.C.; Swan, S.H.; Moore, C.J.; Vom Saal, F.S. Our plastic age. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2009, 364, 1973–1976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Geyer, R.; Jambeck, J.R.; Law, K.L. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci. Adv. 2017, 3, e1700782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Bellasi, A.; Binda, G.; Pozzi, A.; Galafassi, S.; Volta, P.; Bettinetti, R. Microplastic contamination in freshwater environments: A review, focusing on interactions with sediments and benthic organisms. Environments 2020, 7, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Li, C.; Busquets, R.; Campos, L.C. Assessment of microplastics in freshwater systems: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 707, 135578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Xu, S.; Ma, J.; Ji, R.; Pan, K.; Miao, A.J. Microplastics in aquatic environments: Occurrence, accumulation, and biological effects. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 703, 134699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Plastics Europe. Plastics-the Facts 2017 An Analysis of European Plastics Production, Demand and Waste Data. 2018. Available online: https://plasticseurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/2017-Plastics-the-facts.pdf (accessed on 30 May 2023).
  8. OECD. Plastic Pollution Is Growing Relentlessly as Waste Management and Recycling Fall Short, Says OECD 2022. 2022. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/environment/plastic-pollution-is-growing-relentlessly-as-waste-management-and-recycling-fall-short.htm (accessed on 20 June 2023).
  9. Kasavan, S.; Yusoff, S.; Rahmat Fakri, M.F.; Siron, R. Plastic pollution in water ecosystems: A bibliometric analysis from 2000 to 2020. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 313, 127946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Khatun, R.; Xiang, H.; Yang, Y.; Wang, J.; Yildiz, G. Bibliometric analysis of research trends on the thermochemical conversion of plastics during 1990–2020. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 317, 128373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Armenise, S.; SyieLuing, W.; Ramírez-Velásquez, J.M.; Launay, F.; Wuebben, D.; Ngadi, N.; Rams, J.; Muñoz, M. Plastic waste recycling via pyrolysis: A bibliometric survey and literature review. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2021, 158, 105265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Akinpelu, E.A.; Nchu, F. A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Trends in Biodegradation of Plastics. Polymers 2022, 14, 2642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Yang, S.S.; Wu, W.M.; Pang, J.W.; He, L.; Ding, M.Q.; Li, M.X.; Zhao, Y.L.; Sun, H.J.; Xing, D.F.; Ren, N.Q.; et al. Bibliometric analysis of publications on biodegradation of plastics: Explosively emerging research over 70 years. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 428, 139423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Nabgan, W.; Ikram, M.; Alhassan, M.; Owgi, A.H.K.; Van Tran, T.; Parashuram, L.; Nordin, A.H.; Djellabi, R.; Jalil, A.A.; Medina, F.; et al. Bibliometric analysis and an overview of the application of the non-precious materials for pyrolysis reaction of plastic waste. Arab. J. Chem. 2023, 16, 104717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hirsch, J.E. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102, 16569–16572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Merigó, J.M.; Gil-Lafuente, A.M.; Yager, R.R. An overview of fuzzy research with bibliometric indicators. Appl. Soft Comput. 2015, 27, 420–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Li, K.; Rollins, J.; Yan, E. Web of Science use in published research and review papers 1997–2017: A selective, dynamic, cross-domain, content-based analysis. Scientometrics 2018, 115, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Braun, A.B.; Trentin, A.W.; da Silva Trentin, A.W.; Visentin, C.; Thomé, A. Sustainable remediation through the risk management perspective and stakeholder involvement: A systematic and bibliometric view of the literature. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 255, 113221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Wong, S.L.; Mong, G.R.; Nyakuma, B.B.; Ngadi, N.; Wong, K.Y.; Hernández, M.M.; Armenise, S.; Chong, C.T. Upcycling of plastic waste to carbon nanomaterials: A bibliometric analysis (2000–2019). Clean. Technol. Environ. Policy 2022, 24, 739–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Jiménez-García, M.; Ruiz-Chico, J.; Peña-Sánchez, A.R.; López-Sánchez, J.A. A bibliometric analysis of sports tourism and sustainability (2002–2019). Sustainability 2020, 12, 2840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. van Eck, N.J. Methodological Advances in Bibliometric Mapping and Science. Ph.D. Thesis, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2011. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/1765/26509 (accessed on 23 March 2023).
  22. van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Bibliometric Mapping of The Computational Intelligence Field. Int. J. Uncertain. 2007, 15, 625–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L.; Noyons, E.C.M.; Buter, R.K. Automatic term identification for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 2010, 82, 581–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. VOSviewer Manual. Leiden. 2013. Available online: https://www.vosviewer.com/documentation/Manual_VOSviewer_1.5.4.pdf (accessed on 22 March 2023).
  25. Waaijer, C.J.F.; van Bochove, C.A.; van Eck, N.J. On the map: Nature and Science editorials. Scientometrics 2011, 86, 99–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 2010, 84, 523–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. VOSviewer Manual. 2019. Available online: https://www.vosviewer.com/documentation/Manual_VOSviewer_1.6.13.pdf (accessed on 27 March 2023).
  28. Chang, K.; Tao, J.; Fang, C.; Li, J.; Zhou, W.; Wang, X.; Yan, B.; Zeng, D.; Chen, G. Evolution of research topics on the Tibetan Plateau environment and ecology from 2000 to 2020: A paper mining. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 12933–12947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Paquibut, R.Y.; Legion, M.C.; Islam, A.R.M.; Chaudhry, I.S.; Gernal, L. Sustainable plastics waste management framework based on the analysis of people’s awareness, knowledge, attitude, skills, and action: Development of sustainable plastics waste management approaches. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023, 20, 10217–10228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Shilpa, Basak, N.; Meena, S.S. Microbial biodegradation of plastics: Challenges, opportunities, and a critical perspective. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2022, 16, 161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Swain, D.K. Journal Bibliometric Analysis: A Case Study on Internet Research. Libr. Philos. Pract. 2013, 985, 1–23. [Google Scholar]
  32. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Podsakoff, N.P.; Bachrach, D.G. Scholarly influence in the field of management: A bibliometric analysis of the determinants of University and author impact in the management literature in the past quarter century. J. Manag. 2008, 34, 641–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bonilla, C.A.; Merigó, J.M.; Torres-Abad, C. Economics in Latin America: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics 2015, 105, 1239–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Montalván-Burbano, N.; Pérez-Valls, M.; Plaza-Úbeda, J. Analysis of scientific production on organizational innovation. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2020, 7, 1745043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ellegaard, O.; Wallin, J.A. The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact. Scientometrics 2015, 105, 1809–1831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. de Sousa, F.D.B. Management of plastic waste: A bibliometric mapping and analysis. Waste Manag. Res. 2021, 39, 664–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhang, J.; Quoquab, F.; Mohammad, J. Plastic and sustainability: A bibliometric analysis using VOSviewer and CiteSpace. Arab. Gulf J. Sci. Res. 2023. ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Jambeck, J.R.; Geyer, R.; Wilcox, C.; Siegler, T.R.; Perryman, M.; Andrady, A.; Narayan, R.; Law, K.L. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 2015, 347, 768–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wright, S.L.; Kelly, F.J. Plastic and human health: A micro issue. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 6634–6647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Farrukh, M.; Meng, F.; Raza, A.; Tahir, M.S. Twenty-seven years of Sustainable Development Journal: A bibliometric analysis. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 28, 1725–1737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Tsay, M.-Y.; Shu, Z.-Y. Journal bibliometric analysis: A case study on the Journal of Documentation. J. Doc. 2011, 67, 806–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Horton, A.A.; Walton, A.; Spurgeon, D.J.; Lahive, E.; Svendsen, C. Microplastics in freshwater and terrestrial environments: Evaluating the current understanding to identify the knowledge gaps and future research priorities. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 586, 127–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. 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]
  44. Zhu, Y.; Romain, C.; Williams, C.K. Sustainable polymers from renewable resources. Nature 2016, 540, 354–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Auta, H.S.; Emenike, C.U.; Fauziah, S.H. Distribution and importance of microplastics in the marine environmentA review of the sources, fate, effects, and potential solutions. Environ. Int. 2017, 102, 165–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Hahladakis, J.N.; Velis, C.A.; Weber, R.; Iacovidou, E.; Purnell, P. An overview of chemical additives present in plastics: Migration, release, fate and environmental impact during their use, disposal and recycling. J. Hazard. Mater. 2018, 344, 179–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Haider, T.P.; Völker, C.; Kramm, J.; Landfester, K.; Wurm, F.R. Kunststoffe der Zukunft? Der Einfluss von bioabbaubaren Polymeren auf Umwelt und Gesellschaft. Angew. Chem. 2019, 131, 50–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wright, S.L.; Thompson, R.C.; Galloway, T.S. The physical impacts of microplastics on marine organisms: A review. Environ. Pollut. 2013, 178, 483–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Cózar, A.; Echevarría, F.; González-Gordillo, J.I.; Irigoien, X.; Úbeda, B.; Hernández-León, S.; Palma, Á.T.; Navarro, S.; García-de-Lomas, J.; Ruiz, A.; et al. Plastic debris in the open ocean. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 10239–10244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Gall, S.C.; Thompson, R.C. The impact of debris on marine life. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 92, 170–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Li, W.C.; Tse, H.F.; Fok, L. Plastic waste in the marine environment: A review of sources, occurrence and effects. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 566–567, 333–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Lebreton, L.; Slat, B.; Ferrari, F.; Sainte-Rose, B.; Aitken, J.; Marthouse, R.; Hajbane, S.; Cunsolo, S.; Schwarz, A.; Levivier, A.; et al. Evidence that the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is rapidly accumulating plastic. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 4666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Anuar Sharuddin, S.D.; Abnisa, F.; Wan Daud, W.M.A.; Aroua, M.K. A review on pyrolysis of plastic wastes. Energy Convers. Manag. 2016, 115, 308–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ragaert, K.; Delva, L.; Van Geem, K. Mechanical and chemical recycling of solid plastic waste. Waste Manag. 2017, 69, 24–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Li, J.; Liu, H.; Chen, J.P. Microplastics in freshwater systems: A review on occurrence, environmental effects, and methods for microplastics detection. Water Res. 2018, 137, 362–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Borrelle, S.B.; Ringma, J.; Law, K.L.; Monnahan, C.C.; Lebreton, L.; Mcgivern, A.; Murphy, E.; Jambeck, J.; Leonard, G.H.; Hilleary, M.A.; et al. Predicted growth in plastic waste exceeds efforts to mitigate plastic pollution. Science 2020, 369, 1515–1518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Vošner, H.B.; Kokol, P.; Bobek, S.; Železnik, D.; Završnik, J. A bibliometric retrospective of the Journal Computers in Human Behavior (1991–2015). Comput. Human Behav. 2016, 65, 46–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Miao, C.; Humphrey, R.H.; Qian, S. A meta-analysis of emotional intelligence effects on job satisfaction mediated by job resources, and a test of moderators. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2017, 116, 281–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zheng, K.; Wang, X. Publications on the association between cognitive function and pain from 2000 to 2018: A bibliometric analysis using Citespace. Med. Sci. Monit. 2019, 25, 8940–8951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Singh, N.; Hui, D.; Singh, R.; Ahuja, I.P.S.; Feo, L.; Fraternali, F. Recycling of plastic solid waste: A state of art review and future applications. Compos. B Eng. 2017, 115, 409–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Qureshi, M.S.; Oasmaa, A.; Pihkola, H.; Deviatkin, I.; Tenhunen, A.; Mannila, J.; Minkkinen, H.; Pohjakallio, M.; Laine-Ylijoki, J. Pyrolysis of plastic waste: Opportunities and challenges. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2020, 152, 104804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Blettler, M.C.M.; Abrial, E.; Khan, F.R.; Sivri, N.; Espinola, L.A. Freshwater plastic pollution: Recognizing research biases and identifying knowledge gaps. Water Res. 2018, 143, 416–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Cole, M.; Lindeque, P.; Halsband, C.; Galloway, T.S. Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: A review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62, 2588–2597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Thompson, R.C.; Olsen, Y.; Mitchell, R.P.; Davis, A.; Rowland, S.J.; John, A.W.G.; Mcgonigle, D.; Russell, A.E. Lost at Sea: Where Is All the Plastic. Science 2014, 304, 838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Haarr, M.L.; Falk-Andersson, J.; Fabres, J. Global marine litter research 2015–2020: Geographical and methodological trends. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 820, 153162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kumar, A.; Samadder, S.R. A review on technological options of waste to energy for effective management of municipal solid waste. Waste Manag. 2017, 69, 407–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Evode, N.; Qamar, S.A.; Bilal, M.; Barceló, D.; Iqbal, H.M.N. Plastic waste and its management strategies for environmental sustainability. Case Stud. Chem. Environ. Eng. 2021, 4, 100142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Rume, T.; Islam, S.M.D.U. Environmental effects of COVID-19 pandemic and potential strategies of sustainability. Heliyon 2020, 6, e04965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Vanapalli, K.R.; Sharma, H.B.; Ranjan, V.P.; Samal, B.; Bhattacharya, J.; Dubey, B.K.; Goel, S. Challenges and strategies for effective plastic waste management during and post COVID-19 pandemic. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 750, 141514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Sarkodie, S.A.; Owusu, P.A. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on waste management. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 7951–7960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. El-Shahawi, M.S.; Hamza, A.; Bashammakh, A.S.; Al-Saggaf, W.T. An overview on the accumulation, distribution, transformations, toxicity and analytical methods for the monitoring of persistent organic pollutants. Talanta 2010, 80, 1587–1597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Zhang, W.H.; Wu, Y.X.; Simonnot, M.O. Soil Contamination due to E-Waste Disposal and Recycling Activities: A Review with Special Focus on China. Pedosphere 2012, 22, 434–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ali, M.M.; Ali, M.L.; Islam, M.S.; Rahman, M.Z. Preliminary assessment of heavy metals in water and sediment of Karnaphuli River, Bangladesh. Environ. Nanotechnol. Monit. Manag. 2016, 5, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Bound, J.P.; Voulvoulis, N. Pharmaceuticals in the aquatic environment—A comparison of risk assessment strategies. Chemosphere 2004, 56, 1143–1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Schwab, B.W.; Hayes, E.P.; Fiori, J.M.; Mastrocco, F.J.; Roden, N.M.; Cragin, D.; Meyerhoff, R.D.; D’Aco, V.J.; Anderson, P.D. Human pharmaceuticals in US surface waters: A human health risk assessment. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2005, 42, 296–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Liu, J.-L.; Wong, M.-H. Pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs): A review on environmental contamination in China. Environ. Int. 2013, 59, 208–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Huang, Y.; Chen, Q.; Deng, M.; Japenga, J.; Li, T.; Yang, X.; He, Z. Heavy metal pollution and health risk assessment of agricultural soils in a typical peri-urban area in southeast China. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 207, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Secondes, M.F.N.; Naddeo, V.; Belgiorno, V.; Ballesteros, F. Removal of emerging contaminants by simultaneous application of membrane ultrafiltration, activated carbon adsorption, and ultrasound irradiation. J. Hazard. Mater. 2014, 264, 342–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Yagub, M.T.; Sen, T.K.; Afroze, S.; Ang, H.M. Dye and its removal from aqueous solution by adsorption: A review. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2014, 209, 172–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Wang, Y.N.; Wang, Q.; Li, Y.; Wang, H.; Gao, Y.; Sun, Y.; Wang, B.; Bian, R.; Li, W.; Zhan, M. Impact of incineration slag co-disposed with municipal solid waste on methane production and methanogens ecology in landfills. Bioresour. Technol. 2023, 377, 128978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Yu, Z.; Xu, X.; Guo, L.; Jin, R.; Lu, Y. Uptake and transport of micro/nanoplastics in terrestrial plants: Detection, mechanisms, and influencing factors. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 907, 168155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Ma, M.; Tam, V.W.; Le, K.N.; Butera, A.; Li, W.; Wang, X. Comparative Analysis on International Construction and Demolition Waste Management policies and Laws for Policymakers in China. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2023, 292, 107–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 16840 g001
Figure 1. Bibliometric methods and tool steps.
Figure 1. Bibliometric methods and tool steps.
Sustainability 15 16840 g001
Sustainability 15 16840 g002
Figure 2. (a) Publication trends from 1992; (b) Top 10 subject areas of publications.
Figure 2. (a) Publication trends from 1992; (b) Top 10 subject areas of publications.
Sustainability 15 16840 g002
Sustainability 15 16840 g003
Figure 3. Top 25 most relevant sources over the years.
Figure 3. Top 25 most relevant sources over the years.
Sustainability 15 16840 g003
Sustainability 15 16840 g004
Figure 4. Top five journals’ evolution in five years.
Figure 4. Top five journals’ evolution in five years.
Sustainability 15 16840 g004
Sustainability 15 16840 g005
Figure 5. Authors’ network.
Figure 5. Authors’ network.
Sustainability 15 16840 g005
Sustainability 15 16840 g006
Figure 6. Top 50 authors with the number of publications and citations.
Figure 6. Top 50 authors with the number of publications and citations.
Sustainability 15 16840 g006
Sustainability 15 16840 g007
Figure 7. Total citations for each country.
Figure 7. Total citations for each country.
Sustainability 15 16840 g007
Sustainability 15 16840 g008
Figure 8. (a) Country’s scholarly output; (b) Co-authorship country network among the top 50 cited countries; and (c) Country and citations.
Figure 8. (a) Country’s scholarly output; (b) Co-authorship country network among the top 50 cited countries; and (c) Country and citations.
Sustainability 15 16840 g008
Sustainability 15 16840 g009
Figure 9. Network visualization of the affiliations.
Figure 9. Network visualization of the affiliations.
Sustainability 15 16840 g009
Sustainability 15 16840 g010
Figure 10. Citation and record counts based on affiliation.
Figure 10. Citation and record counts based on affiliation.
Sustainability 15 16840 g010
Sustainability 15 16840 g011
Figure 11. Diagram of the correlation of authors, countries, and affiliations.
Figure 11. Diagram of the correlation of authors, countries, and affiliations.
Sustainability 15 16840 g011
Sustainability 15 16840 g012
Figure 12. The citation number of publications following author, year, and journal.
Figure 12. The citation number of publications following author, year, and journal.
Sustainability 15 16840 g012
Sustainability 15 16840 g013
Figure 13. Word cloud of the keywords.
Figure 13. Word cloud of the keywords.
Sustainability 15 16840 g013
Sustainability 15 16840 g014
Figure 14. Keyword occurrence in clusters.
Figure 14. Keyword occurrence in clusters.
Sustainability 15 16840 g014
Sustainability 15 16840 g015
Figure 15. Keywords highlighted.
Figure 15. Keywords highlighted.
Sustainability 15 16840 g015
Table 1. General information about the data obtained from the Web of Science.
Table 1. General information about the data obtained from the Web of Science.
DescriptionResultsRecent Contribution (2022)
Main information
 Timespan1992–2022
 Sources2063
 Documents13,1032256
Document types
 Article10,7001875
 Review article1358325
 Proceeding paper95422
 Meeting abstract1441
 Editorial material13418
 Early access86
 Letter5013
 Book chapters20
 Data paper102
 Correction4
 News item4
 Retracted publication4
 Software review1
Document contents
 Keywords plus14,073
 Author’s keywords24,994
Authors
 Authors46,044200
 Author appearances40,340
 Authors of single-authored documents3507
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rinanda, R.; Sun, Y.; Chang, K.; Sulastri, R.; Cui, X.; Cheng, Z.; Yan, B.; Chen, G. Plastic Waste Management: A Bibliometric Analysis (1992–2022). Sustainability 2023, 15, 16840. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416840

AMA Style

Rinanda R, Sun Y, Chang K, Sulastri R, Cui X, Cheng Z, Yan B, Chen G. Plastic Waste Management: A Bibliometric Analysis (1992–2022). Sustainability. 2023; 15(24):16840. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416840

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rinanda, Rizki, Yunan Sun, Keke Chang, Rini Sulastri, Xiaoqiang Cui, Zhanjun Cheng, Beibei Yan, and Guanyi Chen. 2023. "Plastic Waste Management: A Bibliometric Analysis (1992–2022)" Sustainability 15, no. 24: 16840. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416840

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