We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Size Distributions of Microplastics in the St Louis Estuary and Western Lake Superior
Summary
Researchers mapped the sizes, shapes, and types of microplastics in western Lake Superior and its harbor, finding roughly similar overall counts but meaningful differences in composition. Harbor samples near urban areas had larger particles and more diverse plastic types, while standard counting methods significantly underestimated the smallest particles (under 45 micrometers), highlighting gaps in how we measure microplastic pollution in freshwater.
Identifying the sources and fate of microplastics in natural systems has garnered a great deal of attention because of their implications for ecosystem health. This work characterizes the size fraction, morphology, color, and polymer composition of microplastics in western Lake Superior and its adjacent harbor sampled in August and September 2021. The results reveal that the overall microplastic counts are similar, with the harbor stations ranging from 0.62 to 3.32 microplastics per liter and the lake stations ranged from 0.83 to 1.4 microplastics per liter. However, meaningful differences between the sample locations can be seen in the size fraction trends and polymer composition. Namely, the harbor samples had relatively larger amounts of the largest size fraction and more diversity of polymer types, which can be attributed to the urbanized activity and shorter water residence time. Power law size distribution modeling reveals deviations that help in the understanding of potential sources and removal mechanisms, although it significantly underpredicts microplastic counts for smaller-sized particles (5-45 μm), as determined by comparison with concurrently collected microplastic samples enumerated by Nile Red staining and flow cytometry.
Sign in to start a discussion.
More Papers Like This
Addressing Microplastic Size Distributions in a Large Lake: Adventures in Sampling and Analysis
This conference paper addresses the methodological challenges of measuring the full size distribution of microplastics in a large lake environment. Determining size distributions accurately requires carefully designed sampling and analytical approaches to capture both large and very small microplastic particles.
Assessing diversity, abundance, and mass of microplastics (~ 1–300 μm) in aquatic systems
Researchers developed improved methods for quantifying very small microplastic particles (roughly 1 to 300 micrometers) in freshwater systems, showing that conventional sampling dramatically underestimates plastic particle counts. Accurately measuring this smaller size fraction is critical for understanding real-world microplastic concentrations and their biological impacts.
Microplastics in the Water Column of Western Lake Superior
Researchers sampled the pelagic water column and air-water interface at four locations in western Lake Superior to characterize the presence and depth distribution of microplastics under both stratified and unstratified seasonal conditions. Results confirmed microplastics are present throughout the Lake Superior water column, revealing that surface-only sampling significantly underestimates total microplastic loads in this Great Lakes system.
Variability of microplastic loading and retention in four inland lakes in Minnesota, USA
Researchers measured microplastic levels in four small lakes in Minnesota and found that watershed size and urban development were the biggest factors driving contamination. Surface water concentrations varied widely, and sediment levels did not directly correlate with what was found in the water above. The study highlights how local land use patterns influence where microplastics end up in freshwater ecosystems.
Microplastic in Freshwater Environment: A Review on Techniques and Abundance for Microplastic Detection in Lake Water
This review examines microplastic pollution in freshwater environments, summarizing detection techniques and reporting on abundance data from rivers, lakes, and streams worldwide. The authors highlight methodological inconsistencies that complicate cross-study comparisons and call for standardized sampling and analysis protocols.