Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Review

Occurrence of Microplastics (MPs) in Antarctica and Its Impact on the Health of Organisms

Altmetrics

Downloads

213

Views

116

Comments

0

This version is not peer-reviewed

Submitted:

05 October 2023

Posted:

06 October 2023

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
Antarctica and its surrounding environment are considered untouched and thought that it is free from microplastics (MPs) pollution. However, recent studies and science projects have reported MPs in both water and sediment in the South Polar Regions. The reports state that the MP’s pollution occurs in this region due to fishing, tourism, and research activities by the nearby countries and nature's circulation is also part of it. The Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) has received attention on MP’s pollution and initiated research on it. MPs are tiny plastic particles with a size of less than 5 mm. It has two types, 1. Primary MPs have been manufactured directly for various applications like cosmetics and scrubbing etc 2. The secondary MPs are generated by photochemical degradation of large plastics.Although several studies have been done there is a quite gap in our understanding of the concentration, characteristics, and impact of plastics on the ecosystem of the Antarctic Region. The impact of MP’s pollution in this region may be very high. The presence of MP is a serious issue that is affecting not only the aquatic environment but also humans. It is an alarming situation that causes environmental damage. The main objective of this paper is to review MP's introduction, occurrence, sources, harmful effects, and detection methods. This review highlighted the various methodologies and analyses like density separation, microscope observation of MP’s properties Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), and Raman spectrometer respectively, and urged for more research in the future and gave several recommendations to maintain the pristine region near Antarctica.
Keywords: 
Subject: Environmental and Earth Sciences  -   Environmental Science

1. Introduction

Antarctica is an unpopulated continent and is regarded as the very last extreme wilderness on Earth (Bhardwaj & Jindal, 2019; Bhardwaj & Jindal, 2020; Bhardwaj & Jindal, 2022a). It is separated geographically from the other continents, and has unique biodiversity (Bhardwaj et al., 2021; Bhardwaj et al., 2023), and is endowed with glaciers. Plastics are a chemically diverse group of artificial polymers that are obtained from different chemical and physical processes (Bhardwaj & Sharma, 2021a; Bhardwaj, 2022). The use of plastics is increasing with the increase in the population (Bhardwaj & Sharma, 2021b). More than 90 % of plastics are finished from fossil fuels and form ~ 90 % of marine litter (Rota et al., 2022).
Plastics can be divided into six major types such as polypropylene (PP), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyethylene (PE), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyamide (PA), and polystyrene (PS) (Van Cauwenberghe et al., 2015). Plastics are found in the world's oceans and polyamide (PA) and polyurethane (PU) are the major plastics found in the Antarctic Ocean (Plastics Europe, 2015). PU is used in surface coating at research vessels and research bases. doSul et al., (2011) and Reisser et al., (2013) reported PA (used in fishing nets and ropes) and PS (used in fishing and packaging) in Antarctica.
Microplastics (MPs) are ubiquitous within all oceans (Bergmann et al., 2015) including the Antarctic Ocean (Waller et al., 2017). In spite of their nature, there is very less research available on MPs in the Polar Region (Obbard, 2018). Lee et al., (2013) defined the class of plastics as follows: large MPs (1-5 mm), mesoplastics (5-25 mm), and macroplastics (>25 mm) while Crawford & Quinn, (2017) classified MPs as large MPs (1-5 mm), small MPs (1 µm-1 mm), and nanopalstics (<1 µm). They are expected to continue fragmenting and reach up to nano sizes (Tirkey & Upadhyay, 2021). They are heterogeneous in size and shape (Phuong et al., 2016). Barrows et al., (2017) reported MPs of size 0.1 ≥ 1.5 mm in marine environments. Cole et al., (2013) reported MPs in the ranges from 1.7-30.6 µm in zooplankton by using coherent anti-Stokes Raman Scattering (CARS) and fluorescence microscopy.
Lasee et al., (2017) divided MPs into five groups: micro-pellets (hard and round particles), fragments (hard and jagged-edged particles), films (thin and 2-dimensional plastic films), foam (styrofoam type material), and fibers (thin plastic strands or fibrous). MPs have been categorized in different colors, for example, blue, black & green colors, etc. They persist in the natural environment for a long time and can remain as such for hundreds to thousands of years. They have covered air, water bodies, and sediments and have been reported from different parts of the earth and they are inextricable. They are insoluble in water and are almost impossible to remove with available techniques (Bergmann et al., 2015).  
The discarded plastics are floating in the ocean water and may be degraded through chemical, and physical (da Costa et al., 2016). The rate of degradation is slow in floating plastics compared to terrestrial plastics. Hammer et al., (2012) reported that plastic particles are degraded by ultraviolet (UV) radiation. In the deep ocean, low temperatures and the absence of UV radiation are the main factors for the reduction of the degradation rate (da Costa et al., 2016).
MPs can be transported through currents across ocean basins. They are not sunk due to their buoyancy nature. After traveling a long distance, they may also have been retained in ice for many years. They can re-enter the ocean due to ice melting, wind transport, rising or falling ocean levels, and other meteorological events (Lacerda et al., 2019). Those MP particles which are less dense than oceanic water float on the surface while those particles which are denser than oceanic water tend to settle in deep water and appear in benthic organisms (Long et al., 2019; Kozak et al., 2021).
Low-density floating PS lumps, plastic bottles, and fishing buoys have been reported in the Antarctic Region (Lacerda et al., 2019; Suaria et al., 2020). The pollution through MPs is higher in undeveloped areas due to the lack of appropriate waste management, and it may cause an enormous number of MPs to enter from land to oceans by 2025 (Jambeck et al., 2015). Recently, the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) and United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) observed the issue of MPs in Antarctica and are trying to prohibit the use of plastics globally (Leslie, 2015; Waller & Hughes, 2018).
The increasing MPs in the Antarctic Region are cause for concern as they may affect the Antarctic ecosystem (Tirelli et al., 2022). Several researchers reported MPs of size >25 mm from the Ross Sea and the West Antarctic Peninsula (Barnes et al., 2009; do Sul et al., 2011; Ryan, 2014; Caruso et al., 2022). The author considered approximately 100 research/review articles for this review focused on the Antarctic Region. The author searched these articles from Google Scholar and Research Gate after putting keywords like South Polar Region, MPs, Antarctica, and Antarctic Ocean. Most of the articles were searched from 2009 to 2023. The presence, sources, harmful effects, and detection techniques of MPs in Antarctica and its surrounding environment are described in this review.

2. Occurrence of Microplastics (MPs) in Abiotic and Biotic Components

Different studies investigated MPs in the abiotic components such as sediments, water, snow, & ice, and biotic components such as Krill, & Penguins of the Antarctic Region. The presence of different types of MPs in biotic and abiotic components with their concentrations and detection methods/techniques are presented very well in Table 1 and Table 2. The location map of the MP’s study in the Antarctic Region is shown in Figure 1.

2.1. MPs in Abiotic Components

The presence of fibers, films of polyester, and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) were reported in the freshwater of the Livingston Island, West Antarctic Region (González-Pleiter et al., 2020). MPs of size >0.1 mm float on the surface of the Antarctic Ocean (Cowger et al., 2020). Materić et al., (2022) studied MPs in the sea ice core of the Ross Sea, Antarctica, and reported higher concentrations (67 ng/mL) by using Thermal Desorption-Proton Transfer Reaction-Mass Spectrometry (TD-PTR-MS). These tiny particles are transported by wind and were reported at King George Island (González-Pleiter et al., 2021).
Habib et al., (2020) studied MPs in the soil samples that were collected from Victoria Land, East Antarctica. Cunningham et al., (2020) analyzed 30 samples of sediments that were collected from South Georgia and reported MPs of size >2 mm. Perfetti-Bolaño et al., (2022) researched the occurrence of MPs in the soil and sediment samples that were collected from King George Island and reported higher amounts of MPs in the soil (20-500 µm) and sediment sample (500-2000 µm). Munari et al., (2017) reported a high portion of MPs (5-1705 particles/m2) in sediment samples of Terra Nova Bay, Ross Sea, Antarctica. Lacerda et al., (2019) studied MPs on the Antarctic Peninsula and reported flexible and hard fragments of PU, PA, and PE in ocean water.
Absher et al., (2019) collected 60 water samples from Admiralty Bay and studied MPs in the range of 10-22 μm. Suaria et al., (2020) studied macroplastics, mesoplastics, and MPs around the Southern Ocean and reported 5 MPs and 17 macrolitter items. Cincinelli et al., (2017) reported MPs such as fragments (71.9 ± 21.6 %), and fibers (12.7 ± 14.3 %) from Ross Sea, Antarctica. Jones-Williams et al., (2020) collected surface water samples during the austral summer of 2018 from Adelaide Island, Antarctica, and reported low-density (PE & PP) and high-density (phenoxy & epoxy resins) polymers.
Leistenschneider et al., (2021) collected surface water from the Weddell Sea, West Antarctic Region, and studied MPs with the help of attenuated total reflection Fourier transform infrared (ATR-FTIR) spectroscopy. They reported MPs in a size range >300 μm. Kelly et al., (2020) reported PE, PP, and PA in sea ice of East Antarctica. Aves et al., (2022) collected snow samples from 19 sites on Ross Island, Antarctica, and stated that PET was the most common polymer. Reed et al., (2018) reported MPs particles from the sediment samples which were collected from 20 different locations of Rothera Research Station, Antarctica.

2.2. MPs in Biotic Components

Penguins could act as a vector for the pollution of MPs (Sfriso et al., 2020). Fragão et al., (2021) collected scat samples from Adélie, chinstrap, and gentoo penguins from the Antarctic Peninsula and reported 15 %, 28 %, and 29 % MPs in these samples, respectively. Bessa et al., (2019) collected 80 penguin scat samples from the Antarctic region and reported plastic fragments and fibers with different sizes and polymer compositions.
Zhu et al., (2023) reported PE (37 %), PP (22 %), and PS (21 %) in Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) samples which were collected from the South Shetland Islands and the South Orkney Islands, Antarctica. Erikson and Burton (2003) stated that seals may be used as biomonitors for MP contamination. They reported 164 plastic particles of length 4.1 mm from 145 fur seals from the Antarctic Region. MP particles were found in the gut of the Antarctic collembolan (Cryptopygus antarcticus) (Bergami et al., 2020).

3. Sources of Microplastics (MPs) in the Antarctic Region

MPs may originate from different sources. Primary microplastics (PMPs) are formed from the direct ejection of small particles (e.g. toothpaste, skin cleansers, shampoos, shower gels, synthetic clothing, car tyres, and cosmetics) while secondary microplastics (SMPs) are formed from the obstruction of larger plastic particles (Li et al., 2016) (Figure 2). Larger plastics are dumped into the ocean from terrestrial sources (Nerland et al., 2014). Due to lower resistance to degradation, single-use plastic is a significant source of SMPs and persists in surface water, deep water, and sediments around the world’s oceans (Abreu & Pedrotti, 2019).
The sources of MPs may be direct or indirect. Waller et al., (2017) described the direct sources of MPs as disposal, waste produced by research stations, tourist vessels, and ships while transport by the currents of marine is the indirect source (Fraser et al., 2018). The local sources of MPs in the Antarctic Region may be fewer due to the lack of human population and low volume of shipping. Most of the MPs enter the Antarctic Ocean through the waste stream (Obbard, 2018).

3.1. Microplastics (MPs) Released in Wastewater from the Antarctic Research Bases

The Antarctic Region had been considered unaffected by plastic pollution due to the strong circumpolar frontal systems, even though the debris of plastics have been washing up in Antarctica for decades (Eriksson et al., 2014). ~ 90 % of MP particles may be preserved through the wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) (Ziajahromi et al., 2016) while non-retained particles can be discharged into the Antarctic environment (Gröndahl et al., 2009). Out of 71, 39 research stations in Antarctica have WWTPs, but their effectiveness for removing MPs from the effluent is mainly unknown (Waller et al., 2017). There is very little research available related to the MPs that are released through the wastewater in the Antarctic Region.

3.2. Microplastics (MPs) Released from Personal Care Products (PCPs) and Laundry

Plastics were used by per person in PCPs ranging between 2.40-27.50 mg/day and were released into the ocean (Waller et al., 2017). During the washing of synthetic clothes, MPs may be released in the wastewater of research stations and tourist vessels. Synthetic fibers were released from shirts, fleece, and polyester blankets in the range of 680-1900 fibers per wash (Browne et al., 2011). 0.5-25.5 billion synthetic fibers were released into the Antarctic Ocean over a decade (Waller et al., 2017). A large number of nylon line fragments were reported around Antarctica (do Sul et al., 2011). Microfibers that are released from laundry to wastewater may be a chief source of MPs as compared with PCPs. Very few studies are available on the occurrence of microfibers in the sediments and water of the Antarctic Region. The detection of microfibers in the ocean is very difficult due to the dilution of the effluent of the wastewater.

3.3. Microplastics (MPs) Originate from the Degradation of Macroplastic

In the Antarctic Region, high UV radiation is the chief source of the degradation of floating plastic debris through the photo-oxidation reaction (Andrady et al., 2022). Most plastic wastes are dumped into the environment where they fragment into MPs that pollute water and air, and damage marine wildlife (Tian et al., 2022).

4. Harmful Effects of Microplastics (MPs)

MPs may be carcinogenic and endocrine disruptors in nature. After a single use, the disposal of plastics is the destiny of most of the plastics produced. It has been observed that all marine ecosystems have been affected by plastic pollution. MPs may be harmful to marine organisms as consumed as a food source by mistake (Wright et al., 2013). Their small size may make them accessible for ingestion and accumulation by a wide range of marine organisms and lead to physical and toxicological effects (Waller et al., 2017). Aquatic fauna ingests MPs through direct consumption (Cole et al., 2013). Watts et al., (2014) reported that MPs can be taken up in aquatic organisms by oral ingestion or through the gills. The accumulation of MPs in the gastrointestinal system can cause internal abrasions and blockages.
After entering the organisms, MPs could reach the human body and show several health effects. But the fate of these particles in the human body remains unknown. Harper & Fowler, (1987) reported the first time MPs ingestion by seabird (Pachyptila species) in the Antarctic Ocean while other scientists have reported ingestion of MPs in other species of seabird (Le Guen et al., 2020; Suaria et al., 2020) and Fur Seals (Ryan et al., 2016). The effect of MPs has been reported in ~ 700 different marine species (Gall & Thompson, 2015). MPs can adsorb contaminants such as persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and heavy metals from the surrounding environment and can have many consequences such as reduction of fertility, alteration of growth, and oxidative stress (Chen et al., 2018). These particles are suspected of interacting with the immune system and can change in the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) of organisms (Brown et al., 2011). These particles reduce the energy of the organisms and potentially lead to their death (Wright et al., 2013).

5. Detection Methods/Techniques of Microplastics (MPs): The methods/techniques for the identification or quantification of MPs are limited and these are given below

(i) 
Visual Identification: It is the most common and inexpensive method for the identification of MPs (Lee et al., 2013; Mathalon & Hill, 2014; Primpke et al., 2020). Several parameters such as shape, color distribution, color, length, width, and surface properties are analyzed by this method (Marti et al., 2020; Lusher et al., 2020)
(ii) 
Density Separation: It is the most reliable and economical method and is used to segregate MPs from sediments and water. The density of MPs is affected by the concentration of additives and polymer types (Claessens et al., 2013; Masura et al., 2015). In this method, sodium chloride (NaCl), zinc chloride (ZnCl2), sodium bromide (NaBr), and sodium iodide (NaI) solutions are used for the separation of MPs from samples (Masura et al., 2015; Maes et al., 2017; Coppock et al., 2017; Quinn et al., 2017).
(iii) 
Raman Spectroscopy: This technique is performed on the particle surface and produces vibrational spectra (Schymanski et al., 2018; Sobhani et al., 2019). It is used for the determination of element numbers, size (<1 µm), and shape (Cabernard et al., 2018). It delivers the chemical and structural characteristics of MPs (Crawford and Quinn, 2017). It is time-consuming and can take from several days to weeks for the analysis of samples. Raman spectroscopy and FTIR both techniques are complementary to each other.
(iv) 
Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR): This technique is the most widely used for the estimation of MPs (Cincinelli et al., 2017; Fu et al., 2020; Morais et al., 2020). It produces a spectral pattern known as the IR spectrum. It has three optimizing technologies- focal plane array (FPA), micro-FTIR, and attenuated total reflection (ATR). It can detect MPs up to 10 μm.
(v) 
Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS): This technique is advanced over FTIR as it enters deeper into plastic materials (Paul et al., 2019; Corradini et al., 2019; Pakhomova et al., 2020). In this technique, sample formulation is not required, and the majority of samples can be tested easily.
(vi) 
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR): It is a fast and size-independent technique. In this technique, signal intensities are directly proportional to the proton numbers that give rise to a unique resonance (Peez et al., 2019; Peez & Imhof, 2020). It is an advanced technique over Raman spectroscopy and FTIR.
(vii) 
Thermoanalytical Methods Combined with Gas-Chromatography and Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS): This technique is used in forensic science and the polymer industry (Kusch, 2014). In this technique, polymers are first degraded at the temperature of 600 oC in an oxygen-free environment, and then volatile products are separated through the GC-MS.

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

60 years ago, the production of plastics started and now most of the useful items are partially made of plastics. The presence of MPs in the Antarctic Region has been recognized as a major preservation issue and precedence for investigation. However, the main question concerning plastic in this region remains unanswered. MPs are transported to Antarctica by several anthropogenic activities and subsurface currents. Most of the MPs in the Antarctic Region are coming from the fragmentation of macroplastics. The presence of MPs in the Antarctic Region is clearly mentioned, and this region is not exempted from plastic pollution as considered previously.
Due to the small size, sampling and identification of MPs are very difficult. So, the total concentration of MPs on the surface water of the Antarctic Ocean is not confirmed yet. This plastic pollution is having detrimental impacts on organisms. However, it is not clear which species are being affected more due to the lack of data. The transport and fate of MPs are strongly dependent on the physicochemical properties of the plastics and water. Policymakers are starting to pay attention to the potential risks of MPs which are leading to the ban of some plastic products. This is an important concern as MPs have been accumulating in the environment for decades. The understanding of the behavior of MPs in the environment is the first step toward mitigating the impacts of these contaminants. The present study can help the researchers to provide the baseline data of MPs in the Antarctic Region for future research.
The author suggests several recommendations for the minimization of MP’s pollution:
➢
There should be augmented research in the proximity of the Antarctic Region to upsurge the understanding of the impacts of plastics on the Antarctic ecosystem.
➢
The proper strategy should be made by the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) to prevent and mitigate the problem of MPs in the Antarctic Region.
➢
There is an urgent need for the implementation of waste management and treatment to avoid plastic input into the Antarctic Ocean.
➢
A better step can be to spread environmental awareness among tourists, researchers, and ship crews who use areas in the proximity of Antarctica.
➢
New guidelines/policies should be made globally, for example ban on the use of single-use plastics and regular monitoring of plastic pollution in the ocean should be done.
➢
Government bodies, community, and industry can work together for the reduction of the amount of plastic litter seen in oceans and beaches.
➢
People who use items made from waste material or refuse to buy plastic should be encouraged.
➢
New analytical techniques for the detection of MPs should be developed and standardized by the researchers.

Funding

This study was not supported by any funding agency.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable

Code Availability

Not applicable

Conflicts of interest/Competing interest

There is a single author. So, there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abreu, A., & Pedrotti, M. L. (2019). Microplastics in the oceans: the solutions lie on land. Field Actions Science Reports. The journal of field actions, (Special Issue 19), 62-67.
  2. Absher, T. M., Ferreira, S. L., Kern, Y., Ferreira, A. L., Christo, S. W., & Ando, R. A. (2019). Incidence and identification of microfibers in ocean waters in Admiralty Bay, Antarctica. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 292-298. [CrossRef]
  3. Andrady, A. L., Barnes, P. W., Bornman, J. F., Gouin, T., Madronich, S., White, C. C.,... & Jansen, M. A. K. (2022). Oxidation and fragmentation of plastics in a changing environment; from UV-radiation to biological degradation. Science of The Total Environment, 851, 158022. [CrossRef]
  4. Aves, A. R., Revell, L. E., Gaw, S., Ruffell, H., Schuddeboom, A., Wotherspoon, N. E.,... & McDonald, A. J. (2022). First evidence of microplastics in Antarctic snow. The Cryosphere, 16(6), 2127-2145. [CrossRef]
  5. Barnes, D. K., Galgani, F., Thompson, R. C., & Barlaz, M. (2009). Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philosophical transactions of the royal society B: biological sciences, 364(1526), 1985-1998. [CrossRef]
  6. Barrows, A. P., Neumann, C. A., Berger, M. L., & Shaw, S. D. (2017). Grab vs. neuston tow net: a microplastic sampling performance comparison and possible advances in the field. Analytical methods, 9(9), 1446-1453. [CrossRef]
  7. Bergami, E., Rota, E., Caruso, T., Birarda, G., Vaccari, L., & Corsi, I. (2020). Plastics everywhere: first evidence of polystyrene fragments inside the common Antarctic collembolan Cryptopygus antarcticus. Biology letters, 16(6), 20200093. [CrossRef]
  8. Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., & Klages, M. (2015). Marine anthropogenic litter, 447. Springer Nature.
  9. Bessa, F., Ratcliffe, N., Otero, V., Sobral, P., Marques, J. C., Waluda, C. M.,... & Xavier, J. C. (2019). Microplastics in gentoo penguins from the Antarctic region. Scientific reports, 9(1), 14191. [CrossRef]
  10. Bhardwaj, L. K. (2022). Evaluation of Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate (DEHP) in the PET Bottled Mineral Water of Different Brands and Impact of Heat by GC–MS/MS. Chemistry Africa, 5(4), 929-942. [CrossRef]
  11. Bhardwaj, L. K., & Jindal, T. (2020). Persistent organic pollutants in lakes of Grovnes Peninsula at Larsemann Hill area, East Antarctica. Earth Systems and Environment, 4, 349-358. [CrossRef]
  12. Bhardwaj, L. K., & Jindal, T. (2022a). Evaluation of Coliform and Faecal Coliform Bacteria in the Lakes of Broknes and Grovnes Peninsula, East Antarctica. Nature Environment & Pollution Technology, 21. [CrossRef]
  13. Bhardwaj, L. K., & Sharma, A. (2021a). Estimation of physico-chemical, trace metals, microbiological and phthalate in PET bottled water. Chemistry Africa, 4(4), 981-991. [CrossRef]
  14. Bhardwaj, L. K., & Sharma, A. (2021b). Microplastics (MPs) in Drinking Water: Uses, Sources & Transport. [CrossRef]
  15. Bhardwaj, L. K., Sharma, S., & Jindal, T. (2021). Occurrence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in the lake water at Grovnes Peninsula Over East Antarctica. Chemistry Africa, 4, 965-980. [CrossRef]
  16. Bhardwaj, L. K., Sharma, S., & Jindal, T. (2023). Estimation of Physico-Chemical and Heavy Metals in the Lakes of Grovnes & Broknes Peninsula, Larsemann Hill, East Antarctica. Chemistry Africa, 1-18. [CrossRef]
  17. Bhardwaj, L., & Jindal, T. (2019). Contamination of Lakes in Broknes peninsula, East Antarctica through the Pesticides and PAHs. Asian-Journal of Chemistry, 31(7), 1574-1580. [CrossRef]
  18. Browne, M. A., Crump, P., Niven, S. J., Teuten, E., Tonkin, A., Galloway, T., & Thompson, R. (2011). Accumulation of microplastic on shorelines woldwide: sources and sinks. Environmental science & technology, 45(21), 9175-9179. [CrossRef]
  19. Cabernard, L., Roscher, L., Lorenz, C., Gerdts, G., & Primpke, S. (2018). Comparison of Raman and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy for the quantification of microplastics in the aquatic environment. Environmental science & technology, 52(22), 13279-13288. [CrossRef]
  20. Caruso, G., Bergami, E., Singh, N., & Corsi, I. (2022). Plastic occurrence, sources, and impacts in Antarctic environment and biota. Water Biology and Security, 1(2), 100034. [CrossRef]
  21. Chen, Q., Reisser, J., Cunsolo, S., Kwadijk, C., Kotterman, M., Proietti, M.,... & Koelmans, A. A. (2018). Pollutants in plastics within the North Pacific subtropical gyre. Environmental science & technology, 52(2), 446-456. [CrossRef]
  22. Cincinelli, A., Scopetani, C., Chelazzi, D., Lombardini, E., Martellini, T., Katsoyiannis, A.,... & Corsolini, S. (2017). Microplastic in the surface waters of the Ross Sea (Antarctica): occurrence, distribution and characterization by FTIR. Chemosphere, 175, 391-400. [CrossRef]
  23. Claessens, M., Van Cauwenberghe, L., Vandegehuchte, M. B., & Janssen, C. R. (2013). New techniques for the detection of microplastics in sediments and field collected organisms. Marine pollution bulletin, 70(1-2), 227-233. [CrossRef]
  24. Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Fileman, E., Halsband, C., Goodhead, R., Moger, J., & Galloway, T. S. (2013). Microplastic ingestion by zooplankton. Environmental science & technology, 47(12), 6646-6655. [CrossRef]
  25. Coppock, R. L., Cole, M., Lindeque, P. K., Queirós, A. M., & Galloway, T. S. (2017). A small-scale, portable method for extracting microplastics from marine sediments. Environmental Pollution, 230, 829-837. [CrossRef]
  26. Corradini, F., Bartholomeus, H., Lwanga, E. H., Gertsen, H., & Geissen, V. (2019). Predicting soil microplastic concentration using vis-NIR spectroscopy. Science of the Total Environment, 650, 922-932. [CrossRef]
  27. Cowger, W., Booth, A. M., Hamilton, B. M., Thaysen, C., Primpke, S., Munno, K.,... & Nel, H. (2020). Reporting guidelines to increase the reproducibility and comparability of research on microplastics. Applied Spectroscopy, 74(9), 1066-1077. [CrossRef]
  28. Cózar, A., Echevarría, F., González-Gordillo, J. I., Irigoien, X., Úbeda, B., Hernández-León, S.,... & Duarte, C. M. (2014). Plastic debris in the open ocean. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(28), 10239-10244. [CrossRef]
  29. Crawford, C. B., & Quinn, B. (2017). Microplastic collection techniques. Microplastic pollutants, 179-202. [CrossRef]
  30. Cunningham, E. M., Ehlers, S. M., Dick, J. T., Sigwart, J. D., Linse, K., Dick, J. J., & Kiriakoulakis, K. (2020). High abundances of microplastic pollution in deep-sea sediments: evidence from Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. Environmental Science & Technology, 54(21), 13661-13671. [CrossRef]
  31. da Costa, J. P., Santos, P. S., Duarte, A. C., & Rocha-Santos, T. (2016). (Nano) plastics in the environment–sources, fates and effects. Science of the total environment, 566, 15-26. [CrossRef]
  32. Dawson, A. L., Kawaguchi, S., King, C. K., Townsend, K. A., King, R., Huston, W. M., & Bengtson Nash, S. M. (2018). Turning microplastics into nanoplastics through digestive fragmentation by Antarctic krill. Nature communications, 9(1), 1001. [CrossRef]
  33. do Sul, J. A. I., Barnes, D. K., Costa, M. F., Convey, P., Costa, E. S., & Campos, L. S. (2011). Plastics in the Antarctic environment: are we looking only at the tip of the iceberg? Oecologia Australis, 15(1), 150-170. [CrossRef]
  34. Eriksen, M., Lebreton, L. C., Carson, H. S., Thiel, M., Moore, C. J., Borerro, J. C.,... & Reisser, J. (2014). Plastic pollution in the world's oceans: more than 5 trillion plastic pieces weighing over 250,000 tons afloat at sea. PloS one, 9(12), e111913. [CrossRef]
  35. Eriksson, C., & Burton, H. (2003). Origins and biological accumulation of small plastic particles in fur seals from Macquarie Island. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 32(6), 380-384. [CrossRef]
  36. Europe, P. (2015). An analysis of European plastics production, demand and waste data. Plastics–the facts, 147.
  37. Fragão, J., Bessa, F., Otero, V., Barbosa, A., Sobral, P., Waluda, C. M.,... & Xavier, J. C. (2021). Microplastics and other anthropogenic particles in Antarctica: Using penguins as biological samplers. Science of The Total Environment, 788, 147698. [CrossRef]
  38. Fraser, C. I., Morrison, A. K., Hogg, A. M., Macaya, E. C., van Sebille, E., Ryan, P. G.,... & Waters, J. M. (2018). Antarctica’s ecological isolation will be broken by storm-driven dispersal and warming. Nature climate change, 8(8), 704-708. [CrossRef]
  39. Fu, W., Min, J., Jiang, W., Li, Y., & Zhang, W. (2020). Separation, characterization and identification of microplastics and nanoplastics in the environment. Science of the total environment, 721, 137561. [CrossRef]
  40. Gall, S. C., & Thompson, R. C. (2015). The impact of debris on marine life. Marine pollution bulletin, 92(1-2), 170-179. [CrossRef]
  41. González-Pleiter, M., Edo, C., Velázquez, D., Casero-Chamorro, M. C., Leganés, F., Quesada, A.,... & Rosal, R. (2020). First detection of microplastics in the freshwater of an Antarctic Specially Protected Area. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 161, 111811. [CrossRef]
  42. González-Pleiter, M., Lacerot, G., Edo, C., Pablo Lozoya, J., Leganés, F., Fernández-Piñas, F.,... & Teixeira-de-Mello, F. (2021). A pilot study about microplastics and mesoplastics in an Antarctic glacier. The Cryosphere, 15(6), 2531-2539. [CrossRef]
  43. Gröndahl, F., Sidenmark, J., & Thomsen1, A. (2009). Survey of waste water disposal practices at Antarctic research stations. Polar Research, 28(2), 298-306. [CrossRef]
  44. Habib, S., Iruthayam, A., Abd Shukor, M. Y., Alias, S. A., Smykla, J., & Yasid, N. A. (2020). Biodeterioration of untreated polypropylene microplastic particles by Antarctic bacteria. Polymers, 12(11), 2616. [CrossRef]
  45. Hammer, J., Kraak, M. H., & Parsons, J. R. (2012). Plastics in the marine environment: the dark side of a modern gift. Reviews of environmental contamination and toxicology, 1-44. [CrossRef]
  46. Harper, P. C., & Fowler, J. C. (1987). Plastic pellets in New Zealand storm-killed prions (Pachyptila spp.). Notornis, 34(1), 65-70.
  47. Isobe, A., Uchiyama-Matsumoto, K., Uchida, K., & Tokai, T. (2017). Microplastics in the southern ocean. Marine pollution bulletin, 114(1), 623-626. [CrossRef]
  48. Jambeck, J. R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T. R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A.,... & Law, K. L. (2015). Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science, 347(6223), 768-771. [CrossRef]
  49. Jones-Williams, K., Galloway, T., Cole, M., Stowasser, G., Waluda, C., & Manno, C. (2020). Close encounters-microplastic availability to pelagic amphipods in sub-antarctic and antarctic surface waters. Environment International, 140, 105792. [CrossRef]
  50. Kelly, A., Lannuzel, D., Rodemann, T., Meiners, K. M., & Auman, H. J. (2020). Microplastic contamination in east Antarctic sea ice. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 154, 111130. [CrossRef]
  51. Kozak, E. R., Franco-Gordo, C., Mendoza-Pérez, J., Sánchez-Nuño, N., Martínez-Sánchez, X. A., Melo-Agustín, P.,... & Gómez-Gutiérrez, J. (2021). Surface layer microplastic pollution in four bays of the central Mexican Pacific. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 169, 112537. [CrossRef]
  52. Kusch, P. (2014). Identification of synthetic polymers and copolymers by analytical pyrolysis–gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(10), 1725-1728. [CrossRef]
  53. Lacerda, A. L. D. F., Rodrigues, L. D. S., Van Sebille, E., Rodrigues, F. L., Ribeiro, L., Secchi, E. R.,... & Proietti, M. C. (2019). Plastics in sea surface waters around the Antarctic Peninsula. Scientific reports, 9(1), 3977. [CrossRef]
  54. Lasee, S., Mauricio, J., Thompson, W. A., Karnjanapiboonwong, A., Kasumba, J., Subbiah, S.,... & Anderson, T. A. (2017). Microplastics in a freshwater environment receiving treated wastewater effluent. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 13(3), 528-532. [CrossRef]
  55. Le Guen, C., Suaria, G., Sherley, R. B., Ryan, P. G., Aliani, S., Boehme, L., & Brierley, A. S. (2020). Microplastic study reveals the presence of natural and synthetic fibres in the diet of King Penguins (Aptenodytes patagonicus) foraging from South Georgia. Environment international, 134, 105303. [CrossRef]
  56. Lee, J., Hong, S., Song, Y. K., Hong, S. H., Jang, Y. C., Jang, M.,... & Shim, W. J. (2013). Relationships among the abundances of plastic debris in different size classes on beaches in South Korea. Marine pollution bulletin, 77(1-2), 349-354. [CrossRef]
  57. Leistenschneider, C., Burkhardt-Holm, P., Mani, T., Primpke, S., Taubner, H., & Gerdts, G. (2021). Microplastics in the Weddell Sea (Antarctica): a forensic approach for discrimination between environmental and vessel-induced microplastics. Environmental Science & Technology, 55(23), 15900-15911. [CrossRef]
  58. Leslie, H. A. (2015). Plastic in Cosmetics: Are we polluting the environment through our personal care?: Plastic ingredients that contribute to marine microplastic litter.
  59. Li, W. C., Tse, H. F., & Fok, L. (2016). Plastic waste in the marine environment: A review of sources, occurrence and effects. Science of the total environment, 566, 333-349. [CrossRef]
  60. Long, Z., Pan, Z., Wang, W., Ren, J., Yu, X., Lin, L.,... & Jin, X. (2019). Microplastic abundance, characteristics, and removal in wastewater treatment plants in a coastal city of China. Water Research, 155, 255-265. [CrossRef]
  61. Lusher, A. L., Bråte, I. L. N., Munno, K., Hurley, R. R., & Welden, N. A. (2020). Is it or isn't it: the importance of visual classification in microplastic characterization. Applied spectroscopy, 74(9), 1139-1153. [CrossRef]
  62. Maes, T., Jessop, R., Wellner, N., Haupt, K., & Mayes, A. G. (2017). A rapid-screening approach to detect and quantify microplastics based on fluorescent tagging with Nile Red. Scientific reports, 7(1), 44501. [CrossRef]
  63. Martí, E., Martin, C., Galli, M., Echevarría, F., Duarte, C. M., & Cózar, A. (2020). The colors of the ocean plastics. Environmental Science & Technology, 54(11), 6594-6601. [CrossRef]
  64. Masura, J., Baker, J., Foster, G., & Arthur, C. (2015). Laboratory Methods for the Analysis of Microplastics in the Marine Environment: Recommendations for quantifying synthetic particles in waters and sediments. [CrossRef]
  65. Materić, D., Kjær, H. A., Vallelonga, P., Tison, J. L., Röckmann, T., & Holzinger, R. (2022). Nanoplastics measurements in Northern and Southern polar ice. Environmental research, 208, 112741. [CrossRef]
  66. Mathalon, A., & Hill, P. (2014). Microplastic fibers in the intertidal ecosystem surrounding Halifax Harbor, Nova Scotia. Marine pollution bulletin, 81(1), 69-79. [CrossRef]
  67. Morais, L. M. S., Sarti, F., Chelazzi, D., Cincinelli, A., Giarrizzo, T., & Martinelli Filho, J. E. (2020). The sea anemone Bunodosoma cangicum as a potential biomonitor for microplastics contamination on the Brazilian Amazon coast. Environmental Pollution, 265, 114817. [CrossRef]
  68. Munari, C., Infantini, V., Scoponi, M., Rastelli, E., Corinaldesi, C., & Mistri, M. (2017). Microplastics in the sediments of terra nova bay (ross sea, Antarctica). Marine pollution bulletin, 122(1-2), 161-165. [CrossRef]
  69. Nerland, I. L., Halsband, C., Allan, I., & Thomas, K. V. (2014). Microplastics in marine environments: Occurrence, distribution and effects.
  70. Obbard, R. W. (2018). Microplastics in polar regions: the role of long range transport. Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health, 1, 24-29. [CrossRef]
  71. Pakhomova, S., Zhdanov, I., & van Bavel, B. (2020). Polymer type identification of marine plastic litter using a miniature near-infrared spectrometer (MicroNIR). Applied Sciences, 10(23), 8707. [CrossRef]
  72. Paul, A., Wander, L., Becker, R., Goedecke, C., & Braun, U. (2019). High-throughput NIR spectroscopic (NIRS) detection of microplastics in soil. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 7364-7374. [CrossRef]
  73. Peez, N., & Imhof, W. (2020). Quantitative 1 H-NMR spectroscopy as an efficient method for identification and quantification of PVC, ABS and PA microparticles. Analyst, 145(15), 5363-5371. [CrossRef]
  74. Peez, N., Becker, J., Ehlers, S. M., Fritz, M., Fischer, C. B., Koop, J. H.,... & Imhof, W. (2019). Quantitative analysis of PET microplastics in environmental model samples using quantitative 1 H-NMR spectroscopy: validation of an optimized and consistent sample clean-up method. Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 411, 7409-7418. [CrossRef]
  75. Perfetti-Bolaño, A., Araneda, A., Muñoz, K., & Barra, R. O. (2022). Occurrence and distribution of microplastics in soils and intertidal sediments at Fildes Bay, Maritime Antarctica. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8, 774055. [CrossRef]
  76. Phuong, N. N., Zalouk-Vergnoux, A., Poirier, L., Kamari, A., Châtel, A., Mouneyrac, C., & Lagarde, F. (2016). Is there any consistency between the microplastics found in the field and those used in laboratory experiments?. Environmental pollution, 211, 111-123. [CrossRef]
  77. Primpke, S., Christiansen, S. H., Cowger, W., De Frond, H., Deshpande, A., Fischer, M.,... & Wiggin, K. J. (2020). Critical assessment of analytical methods for the harmonized and cost-efficient analysis of microplastics. Applied Spectroscopy, 74(9), 1012-1047. [CrossRef]
  78. Quinn, B., Murphy, F., & Ewins, C. (2017). Validation of density separation for the rapid recovery of microplastics from sediment. Analytical Methods, 9(9), 1491-1498. [CrossRef]
  79. Reed, S., Clark, M., Thompson, R., & Hughes, K. A. (2018). Microplastics in marine sediments near Rothera research station, Antarctica. Marine pollution bulletin, 133, 460-463. [CrossRef]
  80. Reisser, J., Shaw, J., Wilcox, C., Hardesty, B. D., Proietti, M., Thums, M., & Pattiaratchi, C. (2013). Marine plastic pollution in waters around Australia: characteristics, concentrations, and pathways. PloS one, 8(11), e80466. [CrossRef]
  81. Rota, E., Bergami, E., Corsi, I., & Bargagli, R. (2022). Macro-and microplastics in the Antarctic environment: Ongoing assessment and perspectives. Environments, 9(7), 93. [CrossRef]
  82. Ryan, P. G. (2014). Litter survey detects the South Atlantic ‘garbage patch’. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 79(1-2), 220-224. [CrossRef]
  83. Ryan, P. G., De Bruyn, P. N., & Bester, M. N. (2016). Regional differences in plastic ingestion among Southern Ocean fur seals and albatrosses. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 104(1-2), 207-210. [CrossRef]
  84. Schymanski, D., Goldbeck, C., Humpf, H. U., & Fürst, P. (2018). Analysis of microplastics in water by micro-Raman spectroscopy: Release of plastic particles from different packaging into mineral water. Water research, 129, 154-162. [CrossRef]
  85. Sfriso, A. A., Tomio, Y., Rosso, B., Gambaro, A., Sfriso, A., Corami, F.,... & Munari, C. (2020). Microplastic accumulation in benthic invertebrates in Terra Nova bay (Ross Sea, Antarctica). Environment international, 137, 105587. [CrossRef]
  86. Sobhani, Z., Al Amin, M., Naidu, R., Megharaj, M., & Fang, C. (2019). Identification and visualisation of microplastics by Raman mapping. Analytica chimica acta, 1077, 191-199. [CrossRef]
  87. Suaria, G., Perold, V., Lee, J. R., Lebouard, F., Aliani, S., & Ryan, P. G. (2020). Floating macro-and microplastics around the Southern Ocean: Results from the Antarctic Circumnavigation Expedition. Environment international, 136, 105494. [CrossRef]
  88. Tian, W., Song, P., Zhang, H., Duan, X., Wei, Y., Wang, H., & Wang, S. (2022). Microplastic materials in the environment: Problem and strategical solutions. Progress in Materials Science, 101035. [CrossRef]
  89. Tirelli, V., Suaria, G., & Lusher, A. L. (2022). Microplastics in polar samples. In Handbook of Microplastics in the Environment (pp. 281-322). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  90. Tirkey, A., & Upadhyay, L. S. B. (2021). Microplastics: An overview on separation, identification and characterization of microplastics. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 170, 112604. [CrossRef]
  91. Van Cauwenberghe, L., Devriese, L., Galgani, F., Robbens, J., & Janssen, C. R. (2015). Microplastics in sediments: a review of techniques, occurrence and effects. Marine environmental research, 111, 5-17. [CrossRef]
  92. Waller, C. L., & Hughes, K. A. (2018). Plastics in the Southern Ocean. Antarctic Science, 30(5), 269-269. [CrossRef]
  93. Waller, C. L., Griffiths, H. J., Waluda, C. M., Thorpe, S. E., Loaiza, I., Moreno, B.,... & Hughes, K. A. (2017). Microplastics in the Antarctic marine system: an emerging area of research. Science of the total environment, 598, 220-227. [CrossRef]
  94. Watts, A. J., Lewis, C., Goodhead, R. M., Beckett, S. J., Moger, J., Tyler, C. R., & Galloway, T. S. (2014). Uptake and retention of microplastics by the shore crab Carcinus maenas. Environmental science & technology, 48(15), 8823-8830. [CrossRef]
  95. Wright, S. L., Thompson, R. C., & Galloway, T. S. (2013). The physical impacts of microplastics on marine organisms: a review. Environmental pollution, 178, 483-492. [CrossRef]
  96. Zhu, W., Liu, W., Chen, Y., Liao, K., Yu, W., & Jin, H. (2023). Microplastics in Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) from Antarctic region. Science of The Total Environment, 870, 161880. [CrossRef]
  97. Ziajahromi, S., Neale, P. A., & Leusch, F. D. (2016). Wastewater treatment plant effluent as a source of microplastics: review of the fate, chemical interactions and potential risks to aquatic organisms. Water science and technology, 74(10), 2253-2269. [CrossRef]
Preprints 87025 g001
Figure 1. Location Map of the Study Area in the Antarctic Region (A) South Georgia Island (54°15′ S, 36°45′ W), Signy Island (60.717° S, 45.600° W), South Orkney Island (60°36′ S, 45°30′ W), Admiralty Bay (62°10′ S, 058°25′ W), King George Island (62°02′ S, 58°21′ W), South Shetland Island (62°0′ S, 58°0′ W), Livingston Island (62.6306° S, 60.2044° W), Adelaide Island (67.25° S, 68.5° W), Rothera Research Station (67.5678° S, 68.1267° W), & Weddell Sea (73° S, 45° W) (B) Terra Nova Bay (74.8349° S, 164.5004° E), Ross Sea (75° S, 175° W), & Antarctic Ocean (68.4380° S, 160.2340° W).
Figure 1. Location Map of the Study Area in the Antarctic Region (A) South Georgia Island (54°15′ S, 36°45′ W), Signy Island (60.717° S, 45.600° W), South Orkney Island (60°36′ S, 45°30′ W), Admiralty Bay (62°10′ S, 058°25′ W), King George Island (62°02′ S, 58°21′ W), South Shetland Island (62°0′ S, 58°0′ W), Livingston Island (62.6306° S, 60.2044° W), Adelaide Island (67.25° S, 68.5° W), Rothera Research Station (67.5678° S, 68.1267° W), & Weddell Sea (73° S, 45° W) (B) Terra Nova Bay (74.8349° S, 164.5004° E), Ross Sea (75° S, 175° W), & Antarctic Ocean (68.4380° S, 160.2340° W).
Preprints 87025 g001
Preprints 87025 g002
Figure 2. Microplastics (MPs) and Its Degradation, Bioaccumulation in Different Organisms.
Figure 2. Microplastics (MPs) and Its Degradation, Bioaccumulation in Different Organisms.
Preprints 87025 g002
Table 1. Occurrence of Different Types of Microplastics (MPs) in Abiotic Components (Water, Floating Plastic Debris, Ice, Snow & Sediment) in the Antarctic Region.
Table 1. Occurrence of Different Types of Microplastics (MPs) in Abiotic Components (Water, Floating Plastic Debris, Ice, Snow & Sediment) in the Antarctic Region.
S. No. Sample Matrix Location Detection Method Concentration of Microplastics (MPs) Types and Color of Microplastics (MPs) References
1 Ocean water Antarctic Ocean Microscopic 0.55 to 56.58 gm/km2 Dark color and small size Eriksen et al., 2014
King George Island (West Antarctic Region) 16-766 particles/m2 Synthetic fibre, and fragments Waller et al., 2017
Antarctic Ocean Stereoscopic microscope and FTIR spectroscopy 46, 000 to 99,000 particles/km2 PS and fibres Isobe et al., 2017
Antarctic Peninsula FTIR spectroscopy 1794 items/km2 PU, PA, and PE Lacerda et al., 2019
Admiralty Bay, King George Island (West Antarctic Region) Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and Raman spectroscopy 2.40 (± 4.57) microfibers 100/m3 Microfibers (blue, red, and black), PEG, PU, PET, and PA Absher et al., 2019
Antarctic Ocean µ-FTIR spectroscopy 188 ± 589 particles/km2 PE, PP, PS, PVC, PA, and PMMA Suaria et al., 2020
Ross Sea (Antarctic Region) FTIR spectroscopy 0.17 ± 0.34 particles/m3 Fragments and fibers Cincinelli et al., 2017
Adelaide Island (West Antarctic Region) 0.013 ± 0.005 particles/m3 Fragments and film Jones-Williams et al., 2020
Weddell Sea (West Antarctic Region) ATR-FTIR spectroscopy 0.01 ± 0.01 particles/m3 Fragments and lines Leistenschneider et al., 2021
2 Freshwater Livingston Island (West Antarctic Region) µ-FTIR spectroscopy 0.47 to 1.43 items/1000 m3 Polyester fibers, acrylic fibers and transparent PTFE films González-Pleiter et al., 2020
3 Floating plastic debris Antarctic Ocean Raman spectroscopy 0.100 to 0.514 gm/km2 PE and industrial resin pellets Cózar et al., 2014
4 Sea ice East Antarctica µ-FTIR spectroscopy and TD-PTR-MS 11.71 particles/L PE, PP, and PA Kelly et al., 2020
King George Island, Antarctica 0.17 to 0.33 items/m2 EPS González-Pleiter et al., 2021
Ross Sea (Antarctic Region) 67 ng/mL Fibers, fragments, and films Materic et al., 2022
5 Snow 29.4 ± 4.7 particles/L Aves et al., 2022
6 Sediment South Georgia Island (West Antarctic Region) Visual identification, microscopic and µ-FTIR spectroscopy 1.30 ± 0.51 particles/gm Polyester and blue in color Cunningham et al., 2020
1.09 ± 0.22 particles/gm
1.04 ± 0.39 particles/gm
Rothera research station, Adelaide Island (West Antarctic Region) FTIR spectroscopy < 5 particles/10 mL White, vibrant red, and green Reed et al., 2018
Terra Nova Bay, Ross Sea (Antarctic Region) FTIR spectroscopy 5-1705 particles/m2 Fibers, film, and fragments Munari et al., 2017
* µ-FTIR= micro-Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy, ATR-FTIR= Attenuated total reflection Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, PE=Polyethylene, PU= Polyurethane, PA= Polyamide, PEG= Polyethylene glycols, PP= Polypropylene, PET= Polyethylene terephthalates, PS= Polystyrene, PVC= Polyvinyl chloride, PMMA= Poly methyl methacrylate, PTFE= Polytetrafluoroethylene, EPS= Expanded polystyrene, TD-PTR-MS =Thermal Desorption-Proton Transfer Reaction-Mass Spectrometry.
Table 2. Occurrence of Different Types of Microplastics (MPs) in Biotic Components (Krill & Penguins) in the Antarctic Region.
Table 2. Occurrence of Different Types of Microplastics (MPs) in Biotic Components (Krill & Penguins) in the Antarctic Region.
S. No. Sample Matrix Location Detection Method Concentration of Microplastics (MPs) Types and Color of Microplastics (MPs) References
1 Antarctic Krill (Euphausia superba) Antarctic Peninsula Enzyme digestion, and microscopic 149 beads/mL, 2063 µg/L PE beads and PE fragments (6.0 ± 5.0 S.D. µm) Dawson et al., 2018
South Shetland Island and South Orkney Island (West Antarctic Region) FTIR spectroscopy 0.29 ± 0.14 and 0.20 ± 0.083 items/individual PE, PP, and PS, (Blue, black, and red color particles with <150 μm) Zhu et al., 2023
2 Gentoo Penguins (Pygoscelis papua) Antarctic Peninsula µ-FTIR spectroscopy 0.23 ± 0.53 items/individual Fibers and fragments (76 to 4945 µm) Green, transparent, red, blue, and black Bessa et al., 2019
3 Adélie Penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae), chinstrap Penguins (Pygoscelis antarcticus) and Gentoo Penguins (Pygoscelis papua) 92 particles PE, and PS, Fragão et al., 2021
* µ-FTIR= micro-Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy, PE=Polyethylene, PP= Polypropylene, PS= Polystyrene.
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.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated