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

Microplastics are not important for the cycling and bioaccumulation of organic pollutants in the oceans—but should microplastics be considered POPs themselves?

Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 2017 197 citations ? Citation count from OpenAlex, updated daily. May differ slightly from the publisher's own count. Score: 45 ? 0–100 AI score estimating relevance to the microplastics field. Papers below 30 are filtered from public browse.

Rainer Lohmann Rainer Lohmann Rainer Lohmann Rainer Lohmann Rainer Lohmann

Summary

This perspective challenges the widely held view that microplastics are an important global transport vector for persistent organic pollutants, arguing that natural organic matter and lipids carry far more POPs than plastics do. The authors contend that the real risk of microplastics comes from their physical effects on organisms, not their role in pollutant cycling.

The role of microplastic particles in the cycling and bioaccumulation of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) is discussed. Five common concepts, sometimes misconceptions, about the role of microplastics are reviewed. While there is ample evidence that microplastics accumulate high concentrations of POPs, this does not result in microplastics being important for the global dispersion of POPs. Similarly, there is scant evidence that microplastics are an important transfer vector of POPs into animals, but possibly for plastic additives (flame retardants). Last, listing microplastics as POPs could help reduce their environmental impact. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2017;13:460-465. © 2017 SETAC.

Read via DOI PubMed

Share this paper

Post Share Share Pin Email