Microplastic distribution in surface water and sediment river around slum and industrial area (case study: Ciwalengke River, Majalaya district, Indonesia)
Firdha Cahya Alam
a,*, Emenda Sembiring
a, Barti Setiani Muntalif
a, Veinardi Suendo
baEnvironmental Engineering Department, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung, 40132, Indonesia
bChemistry Department, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung, 40132, Indonesia
h i g h l i g h t s g r a p h i c a l a b s t r a c t
Microplastics were found in slum and industrial areas in Ciwalengke River, Indonesia.
Average 5.85±3.28 microplastic particles per liter found in surface water.
3.03±1.59 microplastic particles per 100 g dry sediments found in sediments.
Dominant microplastic type were found as polyester and nylonfiber.
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 12 October 2018 Received in revised form 15 February 2019 Accepted 27 February 2019 Available online 2 March 2019 Handling Editor: Tamara S. Galloway
Keywords:
Microplastic Sediment Water Ciwalengke river Textile industry Slum area
a b s t r a c t
Microplastic research in urban and industrial areas, including remote areas, have been conducted recently. However, there is still a lack of research about microplastic abundances in slum area. Ciwa- lengke River is located in Majalaya, Indonesia, which is dominated by slum and industrial areas that probably generate microplastics. This research was conducted to investigate the distribution of micro- plastic around the slum area for thefirst time. Surface water and sediment samples of the river were obtained at ten locations and grouped into six segments location based on different land use at the riverbank. Microplastic particles were identified using binocular microscope and categorized by shape and size. The average microplastic concentration were 5.85±3.28 particles per liter of surface water and 3.03±1.59 microplastic particles per 100 g of dry sediments. Microplastic concentration in the sediment samples were found to have significant differences in location segment (Kruskal Wallis test, p- value¼0.01165<0.05), but no significant differences were found in the water samples (Kruskal Wallis test;p-value¼0.654>0.05). In addition, microplastic distribution was dominated byfiber particle. More fiber shape might be derived from the direct clothing of residents in the river and fabric washing process in the textile industries. This was also revealed by Raman spectroscopy test of several microplastic particles indicating that the type of microplastic were polyester and nylon.
©2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Microplastic is a plastic polymer with size less than 5 mm (Arthur et al., 2009). Microplastic can come from primary or
*Corresponding author. Environmental Engineering Department, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Jalan Ganesha 10, Bandung, 40132, Indonesia.
E-mail addresses: alam.fc@alumni.itb.ac.id, alamfirdhacahya@gmail.com (F.C. Alam).
Contents lists available atScienceDirect
Chemosphere
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e :w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / c h e mo sp h e r e
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.02.188 0045-6535/©2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
secondary sources. Primary microplastics have micrometer size since its source, i.e microplasticfiber which is derived from fabric washing (Napper and Thompson, 2016) and cosmetic products (facial cleanser) with the term“microbeads”or“microexfoliates” (Fendall and Sewell, 2009). Secondary microplastics come from degradation of larger plastic waste by physical, chemical, and bio- logical processes in the environment (Browne et al., 2007).
Microplastic can be ingested by organism from different trophic levels in the environment. This microplastics were found to have trophic transfer potential (Nelms et al., 2018), although it is still need further research (Yang et al., 2019). Microplastics also have potential to accumulate the chemical mixture that included in the plastics such asflame retardants, additives, and platisizer (Bråte et al., 2018), and the other hydrophobic organic pollutants (J.
Wang et al., 2017a).
Several studies have shown the dangers of microplastic mainly in marine organisms, for example, instability disruption on mem- brane tissue in the digestive system ofMytilus sp. (Vandermeersch et al., 2015) and causing necrosis or tumor tissue damage inOryzae latipesfish in Japan (Wagner et al., 2014).
Microplastic abundance studies in many areas including urban area (W.Wang et al., 2017b;Wen et al., 2018), industrial area from its Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) (Kalcíkova et al., 2017;
Lin et al., 2018), and also in remote area (Free et al., 2014;Zhang et al., 2016) have been conducted recently. Frere et al. (2017) found that urbanized areas and hydrodynamic affected the spatial distribution of microplastic in the Bay of Brest, France. Anthropo- genic factors were also known to affect the abundance of micro- plastics in water in Hanjiang River and Yangtze River, China (Wang et al., 2017a,2017b).Tang et al. (2018)also found that river runoff, watershed area, population and urbanization rate influence the abundance of microplastics. Shruti et al. (2019)also shown that densely populated area with industrial complex show significant result on microplastic concentration. However, the research about microplastic occurrence in slum area and its relationship with the anthropogenic activity has not been studied.
Ciwalengke River is located in Majalaya, Indonesia with river- side conditionfilled by poor residents living in slum combined with textile industrial areas. Ciwalengke River is one of the tributary rivers of Citarum River with the range of problems starting from industrial waste directly discharged into the river up to the do- mestic waste disposal. Even with low water quality, residents still use the river water for daily purposes such as washing cloths which causes skin diseases around Ciwalengke River (Dachlan, 2013).
Slum area is identical with the condition of housing with lack of permanent roof, no independent latrine, and poor drainage (Ahmad et al., 2013). In this study, slum area is also shown with the poor sanitary facilities, and also waste dumping and direct washing in the river. This condition making it possible to have various types of microplastic particles in the Ciwalengke River. Therefore, this research aims to investigate the distribution of microplastic parti- cles in the sediments and surface water of the Ciwalengke River in slum and industrial areas and also to observe the effect of the anthropogenic activity on the riverbank.
2. Materials and methods 2.1. Sampling time and location
The location of the sampling sites was selected based on pur- posive sampling method with the sampling sites determined from downstream to upstream (Dewi et al., 2015). Sampling was con- ducted from October to November 2017.
The sampling process was carried out gradually over two weeks
and three weeks. Thefirst sampling was conducted on October 12, 2017, the second sampling was conducted on October 26, 2017, and the third sampling was conducted on November 16, 2017. The location codes sequenced from A to J, from upstream to down- stream. The detail of the sampling sites condition are available in Supplementary material 1. The sampling location is shown inFig. 1 below.
The selection of 10 sampling sites was based on the conditions of land use and anthropogenic activities around the river. The classi- fication into segments was made based on a similar type of land use. This classification was conducted to simplify data calculation using statistics.
1. Segment 1
Segment 1 is a location segment consisting of one sampling site, namely site A, representing the upper river far from slum area. The upstream area is connected to wider river with rocky sediment. The land use area were only found some household near the river.
2. Segment 2
Segment 2 is a location segment consisting of two sampling sites, namely site B and site C. Both of these sampling sites repre- sent locations where slum and textile industries were around the riverbanks. List of industries around Ciwalengke River can be found inSupplementary Material 2.
3. Segment 3
Segment 3 is a location segment consisting of two sampling sites, namely site D and site E. This segment represents the sam- pling site where the location around the river are dominated by the slum domestic area. Throughout this segment there are only resi- dents with poor sanitary conditions. Before this segment there is segment 2 of the industry. So the presence of microplastic in this segment is possibly influenced by segment 2.
4. Segment 4
Segment 4 is a location segment consisting of three sampling sites, namely the sites F, G, and H. This segment represents the sampling site with the condition around the river dominated by industrial area. These industries do not have any waste water treatment plant, and discharge their waste water directly to the river (Dachlan, 2013).
5. Segment 5
Segment 5 is a location segment consisting of one sampling site which is site I. This segment represents the sampling site with the condition around the river is only occupied by slum domestic area and the agricultural area. In this segment there is no industry near the river.
6. Segment 6
Segment 6 is a location segment consisting of one sampling site, namely site J. This segment represents the downstream area of the river with only agricultural area around the river.
2.2. Sampling methods
Sampling was conducted both on sediment and water of Ciwa- lengke River to identify the overall distribution of microplastic in
the river.
a. Sediment sampling
Sampling was conducted using Ekman grab sampler on river sediments and with shovels for rocky sedimentary river conditions (Smith et al., 2017). The collected sediments were then placed into a 1 L glass container. Sediments were taken at the center of the river.
The obtained sediment samples were then preserved at 4C (Leslie et al., 2017).
b. Water Sampling
Water sampling was collected using grab sampling method with 1 L glass container. Before sampling, the container was cleanedfirst with water andfirst rinsed 3 times using river water at the sam- pling site. The water samples were taken about 45 cm from the surface (Barrows et al., 2017). Sampling was conducted at the center of river based on Indonesia National Standard number 06-2412- 1991 about Water Quality Sampling Method. The water samples obtained were then preserved at 4C (Leslie et al., 2017).
2.3. Microplastic separation
Microplastic separation of sediment samples and water samples had some differences as sediment samples required further preparations.
a. Sediment samples
Sediment samples were obtained from each sampling site. Each
sediment from each sampling site was processed according to Wang et al. (2017a,2017b)method with some modifications from Peng et al. (2017). Stages of the method are described as follows.
Wet sediment samples of 1 kg were dried in the oven at 100C for 48 h. The dried sediment was then taken as much as 100 g of duplicate and then dissolved with a NaCl 30% solution of 400 mL.
The mixture was then stirred for 2 min using a stirring spoon. After stirred, samples were left standing as long as no more visible ma- terialfloats between the supernatant.Thefloating material in the supernatant was thenfiltered using a vacuum pump on Whatman GF/C (Glass microfiberfilter 1.2mm)filter paper (Zhang et al., 2016).
b. Water Samples
From each 1 L of sample, 500 mL was taken for duplicate mea- surement. To ensure no microplastics were left in the container, the container were cleanse with the aquadest. Blank test were also conducted with aquadest to ensure no microplastics in aquadest.
For each microplastic separation in a water sample, 500 mL of water was then filtered using Whatman GF/C (Glass microfiber filter 1.2mm) paper (Barrows et al., 2017).
2.4. Microplastic visual inspection
Afterfiltering, Whatman paper was then dried in the oven at 105C for 30 min. Thefiltered material on filter paper was then observed using a light binocular microscope with 10-times magnification. OPTIKA series B-383FL microscope was used in this study. Microplastic particles were inspected using a microscope and grouped into two types, namelyfiber, and fragments (and other shapes). The parameters taken were particles per 100 g of dry Fig. 1.Map of sampling location.
sediment for sediment samples and particle per liter for surface water samples (Horton et al., 2017).
2.5. Raman characterization
Several microplastic suspected particles were then analyzed by Raman spectroscopy using Bruker Senterra Raman Spectrometer.
Microplastic samples on filter paper were extracted to a silicon plate using ethanol and acetone solution (Hansen, 2007). The microplastic on the silicon plate wasfirst captured with Infinity-X camera, and then exposed to light with a wavelength of 785 nm, 25 mW of power, with integration time varying from 20 to 45 s. The observed wave numbers are from 300 to 2500 cm1. The obtained Raman spectra were then corrected with the background and automatically compared to the reference polymer plastic spectrum (Cho, 2007;Hager et al., 2018;Was-Gubala and Machnowski, 2014).
2.6. Data analysis
Microsoft Excel 2013 and software R version 3.4.4 were used for processing and presenting data. Descriptive analysis was per- formed on the concentration of microplastic particles in the sedi- ment and water, i.e. the maximum value, the minimum value, the mean value, and the standard deviation. Due to the abnormal dis- tribution of data, the Kruskal-Wallis test was performed to test if there were significant differences in the concentration of micro- plastic particles with sampling sites, segment type of sampling sites, and days of sampling. After being tested with Kruskal-Wallis, a Pairwise Wilcoxon test was conducted to determine which site made a significant difference.
3. Results and discussion 3.1. Microplastic concentration
Observations on river water samples showed that the average (±standard deviation) of microplastic concentration was 5.85±3.28 particles per liter of river water, and the average con- centration of microplastic in sediment samples was 3.03±1.59 microplastic particles per 100 g of dry sediment.
From Table 1, microplastic concentrations found in the sedi- ments of the Ciwalengke River were comparatively fewer than in the River Thames, UK (Horton et al., 2017), Shanghai river sedi- ments in China (Peng et al., 2018), and in the Changjiang Estuary, China (Peng et al., 2017). In this study, the microplastic separation process from sediment samples was performed only whenflotation has been conducted. Differently,Horton et al. (2017)performed a visual microplastic separation and sieving process prior toflotation.
This can also cause differences in microplastic concentrations obtained.
But, in water, microplastic concentration were found to be higher compared toMiller et al. (2017)on the Hudson River, USA. In the study ofMiller et al. (2017), water samples were taken only 18 cm away from the surface, while in this study, water samples
were taken up to 45 cm from the surface. In addition, onlyfiber types of size greater than 100mm are taken into account inMiller et al. (2017), while this study includes other types of microplastic with a smaller size. Moreover, the higher microplastic concentra- tion can be related by the pollution level in the Ciwalengke River which was relatively high due to industrial wastewater discharge (Dachlan, 2013).
3.2. Microplastic visual inspection on microscope
The sample observation using a 10lens magnification light microscope (100 total magnification) on Whatman GF/C filter paper, shown inFig. 2 below. Particles suspected as microplastic looked to have a shape or color that were different from the dominant environment of brown color. This method of identifica- tion was based on the microplastic characteristics conducted by Horton et al. (2017), the colors contrast with the environment, homogeny colors, and different unique shape such asfiber.
This method actually have some limitations, such as misiden- tification as algae or salt. But based on the identification for no cellular identified, not brittle, we can minimize the error of false identification (Marine and Environmental Research Institute, 2015).
According toCesa et al. (2017),fiber that can only be included in microplastic were only syntheticfiber. However, not all thefiber found were confirmed as the syntheticfiber because Raman tests were only conducted for several fiber. All the fiber found were count as the microplastic particles based on the condition that each fiber particles have different structure and contrast color from the environment (Horton et al., 2017). Besides that,fiber that probably comes from textile effluent still have potential to accumulate the persistent organic pollutants (Henry et al., 2018).
3.3. Microplastic particle shape
Based on river water samples observations,fiber particles were found more often (65%) than the fragment or other forms (35%).
Likewise, with sediment samples,fiber forms were more dominant (91%), compared to fragment forms (9%).
More fiber shape compositions were also found in studies
Table 1
Microplastic concentration from different studies.
No. Location Concentration Reference
1. Hudson River, USA 0.98 particles/liter surface water Miller et al. (2017)
2. River Thames, UK 66 particles per 100 g of dry sediment Horton et al. (2017)
3. Shanghai River, China 80.2±59.4 particles per 100 g of dry sediments Peng et al. (2018)
4. Changjiang Estuary, China 12.1±0.9 particles per 100 g of dry sediment Peng et al. (2017)
5. Ciwalengke River, Indonesia 5.85±3.28 particles per liter
3.03±1.59 particles per 100 g of dry sediment
This study
Fig. 2.Microplastic image on microscope; a) Red Fiber, b) Green Fragment. (For interpretation of the references to color in thisfigure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
conducted byPeng et al. (2017)on the coast of Changjiang with 93%
fiber, as well as inHorton et al. (2017)on the River Thames, UK.
Horton et al. (2017)suggested that this type of microplastic shape may be affected by human activity around the river. At one of the sampling sites,Horton et al. (2017)found more fragment forms (91%) in areas close to highways that indicated the decay of road paint fragments. The dominant microplastic shape offiber, frag- ment, andfilm was also found in farmland soil in suburban area of Shanghai, China (Liu et al., 2018). It can be indicated that micro- plastic source can come from the terrestrial environment.
Morefiber forms can be derived from the washing clothes of residents and the results of fabric washing process in the textile industries. That also found from residents who still wash their clothes directly into the river.
3.4. Microplastic particles size
The size of the microplastic particles observed using a light microscope is limited from 50mm to 2000mm. This limitation is to avoid misidentification of any particle smaller than 50mm. InFig. 3, the differences can be observed in the range of microplastic sizes in river water and river sediment.
From Fig. 3, it shows that in the river water samples, small microplastic particles (50e100mm) were found more abundant than larger microplastic samples (1000e2000mm). The opposite case was found in the sediment samples. This can be due to higher densities of larger microplastic, causing the tendency of settling in the sediment (Di and Wang, 2018). In contrast to water samples, small microplastic with low density will tend to float in water.
Particle size showed significant effect on the modeled fate and
retention of microplastic and on the positioning of the accumula- tion hot spots in the sediment along the river (Besseling et al., 2017). According toNizzetto et al. (2016), sediment of river sec- tion with low stream will be hotspots for deposition of microplastic, because larger densities tend to be retained in sediment.
3.5. Sampling time
From the three sampling times, the average concentration of microplastic particles in the river water samples is shown inFig. 4.
From these results, it appears that both in water samples and sediment samples, sampling times have a significant effect on the difference in the concentration of microplastics (Kruskal Wallis test, p-value water¼0.04769, p-value sediments¼0.004398, p- value<0.05). The highest concentration on thefirst sampling time can be caused by several factors. Heavy rains andfloods can in- crease microplastic in the sea (Gündogdu et al., 2018). A heavy rain occurred before the first sampling time. So, it can make the microplastics float in the river and increase the concentration.
Moreover, the difference in the amount of microplastic can be caused by industrial waste discharged into the river which has been done more often on the day before the sampling-1 than on the other day.
3.6. Microplastic concentration in different sampling site
From all sites of sampling location, microplastic suspected ma- terial was found with varying amounts. In the sample of river water, microplastic from upstream to downstream is shown in Fig. 5 below.
Fig. 3.Comparison on size of microplastic in water and sediment samples.
Fig. 4.Comparison of microplastic in sediment and water on different sampling day (error bars are standard error).
From the data, it can be seen that the concentration of micro- plastic particlesfluctuates from upstream to downstream. In the water sample, it can be seen that site F and site J have the largest number compared to other sites, 7.00±2.00 and 7.00±5.17 parti- cles per liter of river water, respectively. Similarly, in sediment samples, site F and site B have the largest amount of microplastic of 3.83±3.12 and 3.83±1.32 particles per 100 g of river sediment respectively. Site F indicates that large quantities can be attributed to this site by the textile industry compared to the other sites.
However, the Kruskal-Wallis test showed that there were not really significant differences in the concentration of microplastic particles on the sampling sites in the sediment samples (p- value¼0.0461e0.05), and also no significant differences were found in the water samples (p-value 0.8759>0.05). This insignifi- cant concentration was similar toRodrigues et al. (2018)in Antu~a River in Portugal which shown no clear distribution from upstream to downstream of microplastic concentration in water. It might be related to proximity to source of microplastic in the riverbank,flow velocity, and also characteristic of plastic (Rodrigues et al., 2018).
If summarized by different land use category, the total number of microplastic found is shown inFig. 6below.
In water samples, it was obtained chi-squaredvalue¼3.2896, df¼5, and p-value¼0.6554 from Kruskal-Wallis test. P-value greater than 0.05 indicates that there is no significant difference in the concentration of microplastics in water samples of each loca- tion segment. This can be affected by theflow of streams that are not large enough from each point (can be seen in Supplementary Material 3). Therefore, microplastic particles distributed quite homogenously from upstream to downstream. In addition, smaller microplastic densities make microplastic easily dispersible by river water (Nizzetto et al., 2016).
On the contrary, the location segment for the sediment gave the significant difference on microplastic concentration (Kruskal Wallis, p-value¼0.01165<0.05). Pairwise Wilcoxon test showed that segment 1 gave the significant difference to segment 2 (p-
value¼0.0049), segment 3 (p-value¼0.0053), and segment 4 (p- value¼0.0104). Other than that, segment 5 gave significant dif- ference with segment 2 (p-value¼0.0279) and segment 3 (p- value¼0.0371). This can be concluded that slum area combine with industrial areas in segment 2 and segment 3 gave significant different on microplastic concentration in sediments compared to the other sites.
This was similar with the study ofShruti et al. (2019)that shown densely populated area with industrial complex affected micro- plastics concentration in river sediments. Slum area with poor sanitary conditions of residents performing activities of bathing, washing, latrine in the river, could possibly influence the fiber particles abundance. The washing activity can producefibers that are shredded from clothing, or the use of detergents that may contain microplastic (Hernandez et al., 2017;Sillanp€a€a and Sainio, 2017).
In Ciwalengke River, most of the industries are textile industries.
According toDe Falco et al. (2018), release of microplastic from textile fabric especially polyester can be influenced by different detergent and also the usage of softener. Almroth et al. (2018) suggested that improvement of textile construction with pre- washing and vacuum exhaustion at production site, and also more efficient filter in washing machine could help mitigate this problem.
3.7. Raman identification
The results of the microplastic particles observed on the silicon plate were then tested using Raman spectroscopy. The results of testing on one of the observedfiber types are shown inFig. 7as follows.
There are peaks at 631 cm1, 702 cm1, 794 cm1, 858 cm1, 997 cm1, 1280 cm1, 1614 cm1, and 1726 cm1indicating that the type of plastic found was polyester (Hager et al., 2018). This in- dicates that the microplastic found can be derived from the Fig. 5.Comparisons of the amount of microplastic from all sampling sites (error bars indicating standard errors).
shredding of clothing both in the textile industry and the washing of citizens (Cesa et al., 2017).
From the identification of 21 microplastic particles, there were two particles indicated as nylon (polyamide), one particle as cotton, and three particles as polyester, with four possible particles of polymer mixture, and other eleven particles which cannot be identified. This results is similar to the microplastic type found in Saigon River which were mainly polyester fiber (Lahens et al., 2018).
Based on the type of particles found in the form of polyester, cotton, and nylon which are generally derived from clothing, the shredded cloth probably plays a role in microplastic generation.
This type of cloth can come from the textile industry along the Ciwalengke River, or it can also come from the washing out of clothing done by people living along the slum area at the Ciwa- lengke River. In the washing process, use of detergent can affect the total mass offiber released from the cloth (Hernandez et al., 2017).
4. Conclusion
From all sampling site, it was found microplastics in slum area both in water and sediments of Ciwalengke River. With sizes ranging from 50mm to 2000mm, average concentration of micro- plastic in river water were found to be 5.85±3.28 particles per liter, Fig. 7.Raman spectra results of redfiber. (For interpretation of the references to color in thisfigure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
Fig. 6.Comparisons of the amount of microplastic in water and sediment from different location segment (error bars indicating standard error).
whereas microplastic in river sediments were about 3.03±1.59 particles per 100 g of dry sediment. Microplastic in the form offiber dominates the microplastic form found in the Ciwalengke River.
This research found that different land use activities around the river showed significant difference on microplastic concentration in sediments samples (Kruskal Wallis test, p-value¼0.01165<0.5).
Meanwhile, no significant differences were found in water samples (Kruskal Wallis test, p-value¼0.6654>0.5). Microplastic abun- dance in Ciwalengke River can be possibly generated from washing process in the industries and laundry activities by domestic resi- dents in slum areas.
Acknowledgement
The authors thank the crew of Water Quality Laboratory and Microbiology Laboratory of Environmental Engineering Depart- ment and also Laboratory of Physical Chemistry and Material of Chemistry Department, Institut Teknologi Bandung. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Declaration of inter- est: none.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.02.188.
References
Marine and Environmental Research Institute, 2015. Guide to Microplastics Iden- tification 14.
Ahmad, S., Choi, M.J., Ko, J., 2013. Quantitative and qualitative demand for slum and non-slum housing in Delhi: empirical evidences from household data. Habitat Int. 38, 90e99.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2012.02.003.
Almroth, B.M.C., Åstr€om, L., Roslund, S., Petersson, H., Johansson, M., Persson, N.K., 2018. Quantifying shedding of synthetic fibers from textiles; a source of microplastics released into the environment. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 25, 1191e1199.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0528-7.
Arthur, C., Baker, J., Bamford, H., 2009. In: Proceedings of the International Research Workshop on the Occurrence , Effects , and Fate of Microplastic Marine Debris.
Group, p. 530.
Barrows, A.P.W., Neumann, C.A., Berger, M.L., Shaw, S.D., 2017. Grab: vs. neuston tow net: a microplastic sampling performance comparison and possible advances in thefield. Anal. Methods 9, 1446e1453.https://doi.org/10.1039/c6ay02387h.
Besseling, E., Quik, J.T.K., Sun, M., Koelmans, A.A., 2017. Fate of nano- and micro- plastic in freshwater systems: a modeling study. Environ. Pollut. 220, 540e548.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.10.001.
Bråte, I.L.N., Blazquez, M., Brooks, S.J., Thomas, K.V., 2018. Weathering impacts the uptake of polyethylene microparticles from toothpaste in Mediterranean mussels (M. galloprovincialis). Sci. Total Environ. 626, 1310e1318.https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.141.
Browne, M.A., Galloway, T., Thompson, R., 2007. Microplastic - an emerging contaminant of potential concern? Integrated Environ. Assess. Manag. 3.
https://doi.org/10.4103/1319-3767.70607.
Cesa, F.S., Turra, A., Baruque-Ramos, J., 2017. Corrigendum to“Syntheticfibers as microplastics in the marine environment: a review from textile perspective with a focus on domestic washings”[Sci. Total Environ. 598 (2017) 1116e1129]
(S0048969717310161) (10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.172). Sci. Total Environ.
603e604, 836.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.179.
Cho, L.-L., 2007. Identification of textilefiber by Raman microspectroscopy. Forensic Sci. J. 1, 55e62.
Dachlan, D., 2013. Warna-Warni Citarum di Majalaya.
De Falco, F., Gullo, M.P., Gentile, G., Di Pace, E., Cocca, M., Gelabert, L., Brouta- Agnesa, M., Rovira, A., Escudero, R., Villalba, R., Mossotti, R., Montarsolo, A., Gavignano, S., Tonin, C., Avella, M., 2018. Evaluation of microplastic release caused by textile washing processes of synthetic fabrics. Environ. Pollut. 236, 916e925.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.10.057.
Dewi, I.S., Budiarsa, A.A., Ritonga, I.R., 2015. Distribusi mikroplastik pada sedimen di Muara Badak, Kabupaten Kutai Kartanegara. Depik 4, 121e131.https://doi.org/
10.13170/depik.4.3.2888.
Di, M., Wang, J., 2018. Microplastics in surface waters and sediments of the three Gorges Reservoir, China. Sci. Total Environ. 616e617, 1620e1627.https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.150.
Fendall, L.S., Sewell, M.A., 2009. Contributing to marine pollution by washing your face: microplastics in facial cleansers. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 58, 1225e1228.https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.04.025.
Free, C.M., Jensen, O.P., Mason, S.A., Eriksen, M., Williamson, N.J., Boldgiv, B., 2014.
High-levels of microplastic pollution in a large, remote, mountain lake. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 85, 156e163.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.06.001.
Frere, L., Paul-Pont, I., Rinnert, E., Petton, S., Jaffr�, J., Bihannic, I., Soudant, P., Lambert, C., Huvet, A., 2017. Influence of environmental and anthropogenic factors on the composition, concentration and spatial distribution of micro- plastics: a case study of the Bay of Brest (Brittany, France). Environ. Pollut. 225, 211e222.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.03.023.
Gündogdu, S., Çevik, C., Ayat, B., Aydogan, B., Karaca, S., 2018. How microplastics quantities increase with flood events? An example from Mersin Bay NE Levantine coast of Turkey. Environ. Pollut. 239, 342e350.https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.envpol.2018.04.042.
Hager, E., Farber, C., Kurouski, D., 2018. Forensic identification of urine on cotton and polyester fabric with a hand-held Raman spectrometer. Forensic Chem 9, 44e49.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forc.2018.05.001.
Hansen, C.M., 2007. Hansen Solubility Parameters A User's Handbook, second ed.
CRC Press Taylor&Francis Grouphttps://doi.org/10.1117/12.2023833.
Henry, B., Laitala, K., Klepp, I.G., 2018. Microplastic Pollution from Textiles : A Literature Review.
Hernandez, E., Nowack, B., Mitrano, D.M., 2017. Polyester textiles as a source of microplastics from households: a mechanistic study to understand microfiber release during washing. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 7036e7046.https://doi.org/
10.1021/acs.est.7b01750.
Horton, A.A., Svendsen, C., Williams, R.J., Spurgeon, D.J., Lahive, E., 2017. Large microplastic particles in sediments of tributaries of the River Thames, UKe abundance, sources and methods for effective quantification. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
114, 218e226.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.09.004.
Kalcíkova, G., Alic, B., Skalar, T., Bundschuh, M., Gotvajn, A.Z., 2017. Wastewater treatment plant effluents as source of cosmetic polyethylene microbeads to freshwater. Chemosphere 188, 25e31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.
2017.08.131.
Lahens, L., Strady, E., Kieu-Le, T.C., Dris, R., Boukerma, K., Rinnert, E., Gasperi, J., Tassin, B., 2018. Macroplastic and microplastic contamination assessment of a tropical river (Saigon River, Vietnam) transversed by a developing megacity.
Environ. Pollut. 236, 661e671.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.02.005.
Leslie, H.A., Brandsma, S.H., van Velzen, M.J.M., Vethaak, A.D., 2017. Microplastics en route:field measurements in the Dutch river delta and Amsterdam canals, wastewater treatment plants, North Sea sediments and biota. Environ. Int. 101, 133e142.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2017.01.018.
Lin, L., Zuo, L.Z., Peng, J.P., Cai, L.Q., Fok, L., Yan, Y., Li, H.X., Xu, X.R., 2018. Occurrence and distribution of microplastics in an urban river: a case study in the Pearl River along Guangzhou City, China. Sci. Total Environ. 644, 375e381.https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.327.
Liu, M., Lu, S., Song, Y., Lei, L., Hu, J., Lv, W., Zhou, W., Cao, C., Shi, H., Yang, X., He, D., 2018. Microplastic and mesoplastic pollution in farmland soils in suburbs of Shanghai, China. Environ. Pollut. 242, 855e862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2018.07.051.
Miller, R.Z., Watts, A.J.R., Winslow, B.O., Galloway, T.S., Barrows, A.P.W., 2017.
Mountains to the sea: river study of plastic and non-plastic microfiber pollution in the northeast USA. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 124, 245e251.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2017.07.028.
Napper, I.E., Thompson, R.C., 2016. Release of synthetic microplastic plasticfibres from domestic washing machines: effects of fabric type and washing condi- tions. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 112, 39e45.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.09.
025.
Nelms, S.E., Galloway, T.S., Godley, B.J., Jarvis, D.S., Lindeque, P.K., 2018. Investigating microplastic trophic transfer in marine top predators. Environ. Pollut. 238, 999e1007.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.02.016.
Nizzetto, L., Bussi, G., Futter, M.N., Butterfield, D., Whitehead, P.G., 2016.
A theoretical assessment of microplastic transport in river catchments and their retention by soils and river sediments. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 18, 1050e1059.https://doi.org/10.1039/c6em00206d.
Peng, G., Zhu, B., Yang, D., Su, L., Shi, H., Li, D., 2017. Microplastics in sediments of the Changjiang estuary, China. Environ. Pollut. 225, 283e290.https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.envpol.2016.12.064.
Peng, G., Xu, P., Zhu, B., Bai, M., Li, D., 2018. Microplastics in freshwater river sed- iments in Shanghai, China: a case study of risk assessment in mega-cities.
Environ. Pollut. 234, 448e456.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.11.034.
Rodrigues, M.O., Abrantes, N., Gonçalves, F.J.M., Nogueira, H., Marques, J.C., Gonçalves, A.M.M., 2018. Spatial and temporal distribution of microplastics in water and sediments of a freshwater system (Antu~a River, Portugal). Sci. Total Environ. 633, 1549e1559.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.233.
Shruti, V.C., Jonathan, M.P., Rodriguez-espinosa, P.F., Rodríguez-gonzalez, F., 2019.
Science of the total environment microplastics in freshwater sediments of Atoyac river basin, Puebla city , Mexico. Sci. Total Environ. 654, 154e163.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.054.
Sillanp€a€a, M., Sainio, P., 2017. Release of polyester and cottonfibers from textiles in machine washings. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 24, 19313e19321.https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11356-017-9621-1.
Smith, J.A., Hodge, J., Garver, J.I., 2017. The Distribution of Microplastic Pollution in the Mohawk River, pp. 67e71.
Tang, G., Liu, M., Zhou, Q., He, H., Chen, K., Zhang, H., Hu, J., Huang, Q., Luo, Y., Ke, H., Chen, B., Xu, X., Cai, M., 2018. Microplastics and polycyclic aromatic hydrocar- bons (PAHs) in Xiamen coastal areas: implications for anthropogenic impacts.
Sci. Total Environ. 634, 811e820.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.336.
Vandermeersch, G., Van Cauwenberghe, L., Janssen, C.R., Marques, A., Granby, K., Fait, G., Kotterman, M.J.J., Diogene, J., Bekaert, K., Robbens, J., Devriese, L., 2015.
A critical view on microplastic quantification in aquatic organisms. Environ. Res.
143, 46e55.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2015.07.016.
Wagner, M., Scherer, C., Alvarez-Mu~noz, D., Brennholt, N., Bourrain, X., Buchinger, S., Fries, E., Grosbois, C., Klasmeier, J., Marti, T., Rodriguez-Mozaz, S., Urbatzka, R., Vethaak, A.D., Winther-Nielsen, M., Reifferscheid, G., 2014. Microplastics in freshwater ecosystems: what we know and what we need to know. Environ. Sci.
Eur. 26, 1e9.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-014-0012-7.
Wang, J., Peng, J., Tan, Z., Gao, Y., Zhan, Z., Chen, Q., Cai, L., 2017a. Microplastics in the surface sediments from the Beijiang River littoral zone: composition, abun- dance, surface textures and interaction with heavy metals. Chemosphere 171, 248e258.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.12.074.
Wang, W., Ndungu, A.W., Li, Z., Wang, J., 2017b. Microplastics pollution in inland freshwaters of China: a case study in urban surface waters of Wuhan, China. Sci.
Total Environ. 575, 1369e1374.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.213.
Was-Gubala, J., Machnowski, W., 2014. Application of Raman spectroscopy for dif- ferentiation among cotton and viscosefibers dyed with several dye classes.
Spectrosc. Lett. 47, 527e535.https://doi.org/10.1080/00387010.2013.820760.
Wen, X., Xu, P., Zeng, G., Huang, D., Hu, L., Wan, J., Deng, R., Du, C., Yin, L., Zhang, J., Tan, S., Yin, Q., 2018. Microplastic pollution in surface sediments of urban water areas in Changsha, China: abundance, composition, surface textures. Mar. Pol- lut. Bull. 136, 414e423.
Yang, Y.F., Chen, C.Y., Lu, T.H., Liao, C.M., 2019. Toxicity-based toxicokinetic/tox- icodynamic assessment for bioaccumulation of polystyrene microplastics in mice. J. Hazard. Mater. 366, 703e713.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.12.
048.
Zhang, K., Su, J., Xiong, X., Wu, X., Wu, C., Liu, J., 2016. Microplastic pollution of lakeshore sediments from remote lakes in Tibet plateau, China. Environ. Pollut.
219, 450e455.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.05.048.
