0
Article ? AI-assigned paper type based on the abstract. Classification may not be perfect — flag errors using the feedback button. Tier 2 ? Original research — experimental, observational, or case-control study. Direct primary evidence. Environmental Sources Marine & Wildlife Sign in to save

Response to Comment on “The missing ocean plastic sink: Gone with the rivers”

Science 2022 3 citations ? Citation count from OpenAlex, updated daily. May differ slightly from the publisher's own count. Score: 35 ? 0–100 AI score estimating relevance to the microplastics field. Papers below 30 are filtered from public browse.
Lisa Weiss Lisa Weiss Lisa Weiss Lisa Weiss Lisa Weiss Lisa Weiss Wolfgang Ludwig, Wolfgang Ludwig, Wolfgang Ludwig, Lisa Weiss Lisa Weiss Lisa Weiss Lisa Weiss Wolfgang Ludwig, Lisa Weiss Lisa Weiss Wolfgang Ludwig, Wolfgang Ludwig, Wolfgang Ludwig, Wolfgang Ludwig, Lisa Weiss Wolfgang Ludwig, Wolfgang Ludwig, Wolfgang Ludwig, Wolfgang Ludwig, Wolfgang Ludwig, Wolfgang Ludwig, Wolfgang Ludwig, Lisa Weiss

Summary

Researchers responded to methodological criticisms of their study on the 'missing ocean plastic sink,' defending their field-measured data and river microplastic flux calculations as rigorous and correctly applied. They argued that critics misread their methods and that the conclusions about oceanic plastic residence time and novel contributions of the original study remain valid.

Study Type Environmental

Mai <i>et al</i>. are mistaken in their assertions that we incorrectly calculated the residence time for floating microplastic stock at the ocean surface, and that most of our results are not novel. Their claim that our field-measured data and methods were not rigorous is wrong, as shown by a more careful consideration of what was done.

Sign in to start a discussion.

Share this paper