47
Piyal Bhattacharya. / Acta Biomedica Scientia. 2016;3(1):47-52.
e - ISSN - 2348 - 2168
Print ISSN - 2348 - 215X
Print ISSN -
Acta Biomedica Scientia
Journal homepage: [Link]/journal/abs
A REVIEW ON THE IMPACTS OF MICROPLASTIC BEADS USED IN
COSMETICS
Piyal Bhattacharya
Department of Environmental Science, Kanchrapara College, West Bengal-743 145, India.
Article Info ABSTRACT
Received 29/09/2015 Microplastic beads used in cosmetics are responsible for significant proportion of the
Revised 16/10/2015 human-made solid waste in aquatic environments. Globally concerns about the impacts of
Accepted 19/11/2015 these microplastics on marine and freshwater ecosystems have been raised. Microplastics
once released into the environment, persist for long before becoming fully decomposed and
Keywords :- reentering normal biogeochemical cycles. Microplastic beads are utilized for
Microplastics in manufacturing of soap, shampoo, deodorant, toothpaste, wrinkle creams, moisturizers,
cosmetics, Plastic shaving cream, sunscreen lotion, facial masks, lipstick, eye shadow, children’s bubble bath,
pollution, Aquatic etc. The actual level of impacts of microplastics cannot be estimated as the volumes of
pollution, Alternative of plastic ingredients used worldwide in cosmetics and personal care product formulations are
microplastics. publically unavailable. Microplastics have been shown to induce negative impacts on the
health of various marine organisms. The possibilities of transfer in food chain as well as
biomagnification of toxins present in microplastic beads are also predicted which may
directly induce toxicity in human beings through seafood. The present review summarizes
the sources, fate and behavior, toxicity and impacts, proposed alternatives and current
regulations on banning the use of microplastic beads.
INTRODUCTION
Richard Thompson, a renowned professor of The screening operation in the wastewater
Marine Science and Engineering at Plymouth University, treatment plants fails to trap these tiny plastic particles
England had coined the term ‘microplastics’ in 2004 [1,2]. [10]. Globally concerns about the impacts of these
Microplastic beads having sizes <5 mm [3,4] are microplastics on marine [5,11-14] as well as freshwater
responsible for significant proportion of the human-made ecosystems [15-19] have been raised by many
solid waste in aquatic environments. They are sourced investigations. This is because of the small size of
from the abrasives used in cosmetics and are of rapidly microplastic beads which makes them bioavailable to
growing environmental concern [1,5-8]. The upper size organisms throughout the aquatic food web [20-22]. The
limit of microplastic beads as 5 mm is mostly used among physical and chemical characteristics of many of these
researchers, although some prefer a definition of <1 mm particles are similar to those of microbeads from household
and in that case any cosmetic formulation containing consumer products, which are apparently not degraded or
particles >1 mm in size is said to contain ‘meso- or completely removed by treatment facilities. Microplastic
macroplastic’, which are also indicators for marine litter beads have also been reported as a pollutant in the Great
under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive [9]. Lakes [23]; moreover, this report had established the three
major pathways to microplastic pollution: (1) effluent
Corresponding Author discharge from wastewater treatment plants; (2) overflow
from sewage treatment plants during heavy downpour; and
Piyal Bhattacharya (3) runoff from sewage-based fertilizer deposited on
Email: piyal_green@[Link] agricultural or public lands.
Review Article
48 Piyal Bhattacharya. / Acta Biomedica Scientia. 2016;3(1):47-52.
Current researches are focused mainly to identify Fate and Behavior of Microplastic Beads
the various potential sources of microplastic pollution in A large portion of rinse off cosmetic and personal
order to maneuver decision-making on preventing actions care products that contain microplastic beads moves from
and abatement measures. Emission prevention is cited as household drains to surface water bodies or sewage
the key mitigation strategy [24]. Six years of research by treatment plants, if available. Screening of wastewater in
the 5 Gyres Institute estimated that 5.25 trillion plastic the treatment facilities is unable to remove these tiny
particles weighing some 269,000 tons are floating on the plastic particles [10]. Passing through riverine system they
surface of the sea [25]. get ultimately discharged into seas and oceans. In the
Microplastic beads usage in personal care and marine environment microplastics can then travel vast
cosmetic products has been established as one of the prime distances by floating in seawater or sediment to the seabed
sources and routes through which persistent, potentially [26]. Once released into the environment, microplastic
harmful plastic materials can be emitted to the marine beads of cosmetics are expected to persist for centuries
environment [1,5,26]. Everyday use of personal care and before becoming fully decomposed and reentering normal
cosmetic products releases these plastic particles directly biogeochemical cycles [9]. Sewage sludge is another
into wastewater as the products are for the most part important receptacle of microplastics from cosmetics and
washed off or rinsed down the drain during or after use. A personal care products [26]. The contaminated sewage
typical facial scrub contains approximately 350,000 sludge sometimes incinerated or used for land filling or
microbeads [27]. Celmo and Addison [28] reported that even applied in the agricultural fields as manures. These all
over half of women use four or more beauty products a day result into the release of harmful microplastics in the
(estimated global spending by women: $426 billion a different spheres of the environment [30,31]. In the aquatic
year), and a large portion of those cosmetics consists of environment microplastic particulates are consumed by
products containing microplastic beads. various organisms like lugworms, amphipods and
barnacles [1], blue mussels [32], sea cucumbers [33], and
Sources of Microplastic Beads others, and thus can potentially enter the food chain [22].
Microplastic beads of type thermoplastics and Presence of microplastics has been detected, for example
thermoset plastics including silicones are utilized in the in Northern Fulmar seabirds [34], Norwegian lobsters,
cosmetic and personal care industries for manufacturing of oysters, mussels, common periwinkles and amphipods [35]
a wide range of products like soap, shampoo, deodorant, and various species of fish [11,36,37].
toothpaste, wrinkle creams, moisturizers, shaving cream,
sunscreen lotion, facial masks, lipstick, eye shadow, Toxicity and Impacts of Microplastic Beads
children’s bubble bath, etc [9]. They are useful for film As the volumes of plastic ingredients used
formation, viscosity regulation, skin conditioning, worldwide in cosmetics and personal care product
emulsion stabilizing, etc purposes. formulations are not publically available their true impacts
The microplastics responsible for the marine cannot be estimated. In various studies primary producers
pollution have the following properties in common with to marine invertebrates or mammalian systems to human
other microplastic litter: (1) they are synthetic polymers tissue systems when exposed to sufficiently high
and/or copolymers (2) they are solid phase materials i.e. concentrations of microplastic beads are reported to show
particulates, and not liquids, (3) they are insoluble in water, various symptoms of toxicity [9]. According to this report
(4) they are non biodegradable, and (4) they have small sufficient exposure to microplastics can lead to oxidative
size [26]. There are although a variety of microplastics in stress and inflammatory responses in various parts of the
the environment those come from sources other than body. It was also found that the fine particulates can
cosmetics. For example, one load of laundry is estimated to translocate to bloodstream, brain and other organs of biota.
contain more than 1,900 fibers of microplastics, with Furthermore, inhalation of these tiny particulates has been
fleeces releasing the highest percentage of fibers [7]. related to allergic reactions, asthma, cancer and heart
Moreover, these clothing fibers adhere very easily to disease among subjects. Microplastics have been shown to
various other chemicals in the ambient environment and induce negative impacts on the health of marine organisms,
transform themselves into more toxic forms [29]. affecting the energy availability required for important life
Microplastics can be derived from physical, biological and sustaining processes, affecting the filtration behavior as
chemical breakdown of larger plastic debris, both at sea well as physiological parameters in the blue mussel,
and on land, and are called the ‘Secondary microplastics’. impacting the immunological system of mammals, algal
Ship movements, coastal tourism, recreational and photosynthesis, granuloma formation (inflammatory
commercial fishing, natural calamities, dumping of sewage response), decreased lysosome stability, increase in
sludge and marine industries are also sources of plastic haemocytes, etc [9,38,39]. Particle toxicity has been
wastes in the aquatic environment; on long-term established to be size and shape-dependent but according
degradation they induce secondary microplastics in the to Leslie [40] it may also be dependent on the specific
aquatic ecosystem. chemical make-up of the microplastic particles i.e.
Review Article
49 Piyal Bhattacharya. / Acta Biomedica Scientia. 2016;3(1):47-52.
monomer, polymer, additives, possible absorbed and false satiation [19,22,39,44]. Investigations till date
contaminants, etc. In human beings the microplastics can although unable to correctly quantify the amount of plastic
be transported through gastrointestinal tracts to lymph and in the ocean do appear to contribute to persistent,
circulatory systems, through placentas to unborn fetuses, bioaccumulative and toxic substances in the human diet
absorbed in lungs when inhaled, causing a variety of [47]. The aim of an ongoing NOAA study is to
biological responses from the immune system and demonstrate for the first time the biomagnification in
negatively impacting health of body cells [26,41-43]. marine organisms of chemicals introduced via plastics. The
Reduction in algal feeding by copepods was seen when experiment involves feeding contaminated plastic pellets to
they were acutely exposed to high concentrations of mussels, feeding the mussels to sturgeon, and then testing
microplastics [44]. Von Moos et al. [39] demonstrated that levels of PCBs within the bodies of the sturgeon. Results
microplastics taken up by mussels resulted in a strong are still awaiting analysis and publication.
inflammatory response. Plastic particles can induce
immunotoxicological responses, alter gene expression and Alternatives of Microplastic Beads
cause cell death, among other adverse effects [2]. Uses of microplastics in cosmetics have emerged
Characteristics, accumulation zones and transport as a major environmental concern. At the same time the
pathways of microplastics still remain poorly assessed. In popularity and worldwide prominent sale of these cosmetic
their study on water bodies around Australia, Reisser et al. products containing microplastics make it difficult to
[12] concluded that marine plastics were predominantly eliminate those products from use. Hence a safer substitute
microplastics with the potential to affect organisms ranging is required to replace these environmentally hazardous
from zooplankton and small fish to mega fauna. Moreover, constituents. World plastics production has experienced
the authors also predicted the possibility of almost constant growth for more than half a century, rising
biomagnification of toxins present in microplastic beads in from approximately 1.9 tons in 1950 to approximately 330
marine ecosystem. Similarly plastic accumulation in the million tons in 2013 [48]. A recent study had revealed that
guts of myctophid fish was shown to be biomagnified in 5.25 trillion plastic particles weighing some 269,000 tons
the seal scat and Southern Bluefin tuna species of are floating on the surface of the sea [25]. The option to
Tasmania [45]. Plastic pollution derived from liquid hand- remove the accumulated plastic load from the ocean is time
cleansers was first recognized in the 1990s although it was consuming, costly as well as non viable on some aspects.
then considered as a minor source of plastic pollution due Moreover, this operation will simultaneously remove the
to their rare uses by the average consumer. However, normally abundant microscopic yet significant planktons
Fendall and Sewell [5] reported that the millions of and other flora and fauna from the food chain which may
consumer of today’s world were likely to be using disrupt the entire marine ecosystem [46]. Thus, the only
microplastic-containing hand-cleanser and other cosmetic option is to minimize and if possible cease the entrance of
products on a daily or at least weekly basis. Thus, the more plastic in the lakes, rivers, seas and ocean. Ocean
report suggested that polyethylene microplastics, raw Conservancy, Plastic Pollution Coalition, 5 Gyres, etc
material of most of facial cleansers would definitely organizations are working with the scientists, politicians
pollute the marine ecosystem as wastewater treatment and industries to aware the public about the problems
plants were unable to screen them. These microplastic related with the use and discharge of microplastic beads
beads are predicted to have both immediate as well as [2]. As part of the overarching contribution in providing
long-term impacts on plankton and filter-feeding sustainable solutions, representatives of plastics
organisms at the base of marine food chains. Moreover, the organizations from around the globe have announced a
persistent nature of microplastics in the environment would ‘Declaration for Solutions on Marine Litter’ at the 5 th
consequently lead to more toxic responses over time [5]. International Marine Debris Conference in Honolulu. The
The authors also assumed that microplastics when ingested declaration describes steps that the industries will take and
by organisms of the lowest trophic tier in the food chain suggest approaches and platforms for global cooperation
would transfer in different species of pelagic fish that may and future partnerships. As of 2015, 60 world plastic
directly induce toxicity in dietary intake by human beings. organizations from 34 countries signed the pledge.
Experts are especially concerned about the enormous Different multinational companies like Avon, Beiersdorf,
amounts of plastic particles that are smaller than grains of Colgate-Palmolive, Henkel, L' Oréal, Oral B, Procter and
sand and may enter the food chain [46]. This assumption Gamble, Unilever, etc had announced that they would
was further reinforced by different studies on the phase out the use of microplastics in their cosmetics
consumption of microplastics by various marine products. Many other personal care product companies are
invertebrates [44], fish [36], sea birds [21] and mammals voluntarily phasing out the use of microplastics in their
[45]. Microplastic ingestion by these species has reported products. Chinese plastic industry associations are the
to cause negative health impacts like reduced feeding, conglomerate of major plastic producers of the world.
depleted energy reserves and decreased ecophysiological They have recently joined the global effort to prevent used
function as a result of physical injury, physiological stress plastics from entering the environment. New legislations
Review Article
50 Piyal Bhattacharya. / Acta Biomedica Scientia. 2016;3(1):47-52.
are thus required to chalk-out strategies in manufacturing and issued a joint call to ban the microplastics used in
sustainable and biodegradable plastics, handling plastic personal care products. The joint call was aimed to take
products more responsibly after utilizing them during their measure that would protect marine ecosystems and seafood
life cycle through proper recycling, safe disposal and such as mussels from contamination. One of the most
extended responsibility from the producers’ end. prominent campaigns is the ‘Beat the Microbead’
A possible alternative to traditional microbeads movement, which focuses on removing microplastics from
for cosmetics and personal health care products was cosmetics and personal care products.
suggested to be the biodegradable polyhydroxyalkanoate
(PHA) microbeads [28]. Being soluble PHAs minimize the CONCLUSION
potential threats of microplastic beads in the environment. As there are no reliable data regarding how much
PHAs can biodegrade in either aerobic or anaerobic plastic disposed off into the environment and on what
environments. The authors have also demonstrated the timescale it decays to microplastics [46] educating the
faster biodegradation rate of PHAs in comparison with public by creating necessary awareness on the risks of
other traditional synthetic polymers. Havens et al. [49] using microplastic containing products that present
have applied for a patent on the method for reducing immediate as well as long-term direct and indirect threats
marine pollution using PHA microbeads. They have to the aquatic ecosystems and on the human health through
claimed that the described method by incorporating PHA food is to be done in an urgent basis. The permanent
microbeads into personal care formulations such as solution of this new-age pollution will necessarily require a
exfoliants, cosmetics and toothpaste would reduce aquatic combination of more scientific research to determine
pollution significantly. where to best put effort and resources, technological
innovations and public/policy initiatives to refuse, reduce,
Regulations on Banning the Use of Microplastic Beads reuse, recycle and rethink so that the flow of plastic to the
Illinois was the first US state to enact legislation environment is stemmed [46].
banning the manufacture and sale of products containing
microbeads in 2014. The ban was a resultant on the reports ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
of microplastic pollution in the Great Lakes [23] and North I am grateful to Steve Connor for his very
Shore Channel, Chicago [50]. The two-part ban will be interesting news article ‘Hidden threat: Tiny plastic beads
effective from 2018 and 2019, respectively. Other US in cosmetics’ in the Times of India (19th May, 2014) which
states, including New Jersey and Maine had passed similar encouraged me to endeavor this new arena of plastic
legislation. These legislative efforts have broad support pollution.
from the American Chemistry Council’s Plastics Division,
consumer product manufacturers and environmental CONFLICT OF INTEREST
groups. The Netherlands, Austria, Luxembourg, Belgium The author declares that he has no conflict of
and Sweden expressed the situations as of utmost priority interest.
REFERENCES
1. Thompson RC, Olsen Y, Mitchell RP, Davis A, Rowland SJ, et al. (2004). Lost at sea: where is all the plastic? Sci, 304,
838.
2. Seltenrich N. (2015). Marine plastic pollution and seafood safety. Environ Health Perspect, 123(2), A35−A41.
3. Moore CJ. (2008). Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: a rapidly increasing, long-term threat. Environ Res, 108,
131–139.
4. UNEP. (2011). UNEP Year Book. [Link]/yearbook/2011/ (accessed 10November, 2015).
5. Fendall LS, Sewell MA. (2009). Contributing to marine pollution by washing your face: microplastics in facial cleansers.
Mar Pollut Bull, 58, 1225–1228.
6. Andrady AL. (2011). Microplastics in the marine environment. Mar Pollut Bull, 62, 1596–15605.
7. Browne MA, Crump P, Niven SJ, Teuten E, Tonkin A, et al. (2011). Accumulation of microplastic on shorelines
worldwide: sources and sinks. Environ Sci Technol, 45, 9175–9179.
8. Cole M, Lindeque P, Halsband C, Galloway TS. (2011). Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: a
review. Mar Pollut Bull, 62, 2588–2597.
9. Leslie HA. (2014). Review of Microplastics in Cosmetics. Institute of Environmental Studies, VU University of
Amsterdam, the Netherlands, pp7.
10. Vesilend PA. (2003). Wastewater treatment plant design. Water Environment Federation, Virginia, USA.
11. Lusher AL, McHugh M, Thompson RC. (2013). Occurrence of microplastics in the gastrointestinal tract of pelagic and
demersal fish from the English Channel. Mar Pollut Bull, 67, 94–99.
12. Reisser J, Shaw J, Wilcox C, Hardesty BD, Proietti M, Thums M, Pattiaratchi C. (2013). Marine plastic pollution in waters
around Australia: characteristics, concentrations, and pathways. PLoS ONE, 8(11), 1−11.
Review Article
51 Piyal Bhattacharya. / Acta Biomedica Scientia. 2016;3(1):47-52.
13. Van Cauwenberghe L, Vanreusel A, Mees J, Janssen CR. (2013). Microplastic pollution in deep-sea sediments. Environ
Pollut, 182, 495–499.
14. Ivar do Sul JA, Costa MF. (2014). The present and future of microplastic pollution in the marine environment. Environ
Pollut, 185, 352–364.
15. Zbyszewski M, Corcoran PL. (2011). Distribution and degradation of fresh water plastic particles along the beaches of
Lake Huron, Canada. Water Air Soil Pollut, 220, 365–372.
16. Faure F, Corbaz M, Baecher H, de Alencastro LF. (2012). Pollution due to plastics and microplastics in Lake Geneva and
in the Mediterranean Sea. Arch Sci, 65, 157–164.
17. Dubaish F, Liebezeit G. (2013). Suspended microplastics and black carbon particles in the jade system, Southern North
Sea. Water Air Soil Pollut, 224, 13–52.
18. Imhof HK, Ivleva NP, Schmid J, Niessner R, Laforsch C. (2013). Contamination of beach sediments of a subalpine lake
with microplastic particles. Curr Biol, 23, R867–R868.
19. Free CM, Jensen OP, Mason SA, Eriksen M, Williamson NJ, Boldgiv B. (2014). High-levels of microplastic pollution in a
large, remote, mountain lake. Mar Pollut Bull, 85, 156–163.
20. Betts K. (2008). Why small plastic particles may pose a big problem in the oceans. Environ Sci Technol, 42, 89–95.
21. Thompson RC, Swan SH, Moore CJ, vom Saal FS. (2009). Our plastic age. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B: Biol Sci, 364,
1973–1976.
22. Wright SL, Thompson RC, Galloway TS. (2013). The physical impacts of microplastics on marine organisms: a review.
Environ Pollut, 178, 483–492.
23. Eriksen M, Mason S, Wilson S, Box C, Zellers A, et al. (2013). Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the
Laurentian Great Lakes. Mar Pollut Bull, 77, 177–182.
24. STAP. (2011). Marine Debris as a Global Environmental Problem: introducing a solution based framework focused on
plastic. A STAP Information Document, Global Environment Facility, Washington DC.
25. Eriksen M, Lebreton LCM, Carson HS, Thiel M, Moore CJ et al. (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.
26. UNEP. (2015). Plastics in cosmetics–are we polluting the environment through our personal care? Institute of
Environmental Studies, VU University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
27. Smulligan-Maldanis S. (2014). Environmental responsibility in cosmetics: the case of microbeads.
[Link] (accessed 9 November, 2015).
28. Celmo C, Addison M. (2015). Biodegradable microbead alternative for cosmetics. Fifteenth Annual Freshman Engineering
Conference, University of Pittsburgh, the USA, Paper #5187.
29. Grossman E. (2015). How microplastics from your fleece could end up on your plate. Civil Eats, January 15, 2015.
30. EPA. (2006). Emerging technologies for biosolids management. EPA 832-R-06-005, pp 135.
31. Fytili D, Zabaniotou A. (2008). Utilization of sewage sludge in EU application of old and new methods -a review. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev, 12, 116–140.
32. Browne MA, Dissanayake A, Galloway TS, Lowe DM, Thompson RC. (2008). Ingested microscopic plastic translocates to
the circulatory system of the mussel, Mytilus edulis (L.). Environ Sci Technol, 42(13), 5026–5031.
33. Graham ER, Thompson JT. (2009). Deposit- and suspension-feeding sea cucumbers (Echinodermata) ingest plastic
fragments. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol, 368, 22–29.
34. Van Franeker JA, Blaize C, Danielsen J, Fairclough K, Gollan J, Guse N, Hansen PL, Heubeck M, Jensen JK, Le Guillou
G. (2011). Monitoring plastic ingestion by the northern fulmar Fulmarus glacialis in the North Sea. Environ Pollut, 159,
2609–2615.
35. Leslie HA, van Velzen MJM, Vethaak AD. (2013). Microplastic survey of the Dutch environment. Institute for
Environmental Studies (IVM), VU University, Report R–13/11.
36. Boerger CM, Lattin GL, Moore SL, Moore CJ. (2010). Plastic ingestion by planktivorous fishes in the North Pacific
Central Gyre. Mar Pollut Bull, 60, 2275–2278.
37. Foekema EM, De Gruijter C, Mergia MT, Van Franeker JA, Murk AJ, Koelmans AA. (2013). Plastic in North Sea Fish.
Environ Sci Technol, 47, 8818–8824.
38. Bhattacharya P, Lin S, Turner JP, Pu CK. (2010). Physical adsorption of charged plastic nanoparticles affects algal
photosynthesis. J Phys Chem, 114, 16556–16561.
39. Von Moos N, Burkhardt-Holm P, Köhler A. (2012). Uptake and effects of microplastics on cells and tissue of the blue
mussel Mytilus edulis L. after an experimental exposure. Environ Sci Technol, 46, 11327–11335.
40. Leslie HA. (2012). Microplastic in North Sea suspended particulate matter and cosmetics. Institute for Environmental
Studies, VU University, Report W-12/01.
41. Hussain N, Jaitley V, Florence AT. (2001). Recent advances in the understanding of uptake of microparticulates across the
gastrointestinal lymphatics. Adv Drug Deliv Rev, 50, 107–142.
Review Article
52 Piyal Bhattacharya. / Acta Biomedica Scientia. 2016;3(1):47-52.
42. Berntsen P, Park CY, Rothen-Rutishauser B, Tsuda A, Sager TM, Molina RM, Donaghey TC, Alencar AM, Kasahara DI,
Ericsson T, Millet EJ, Swenson J, Tschumperlin DJ, Butler JP, Brain JD, Fredberg JJ, Gehr P, Zhou EH. (2010).
Biomechanical effects of environmental and engineered particles on human airway smooth muscle cells. J R Soc Interface,
7, S331–S340.
43. Wick P, Malek A, Manser P, Meili D, Maeder-Althaus X, Diener L, Diener PA, Zisch A, Krug HF, Von Mandach U.
(2010). Barrier capacity of human placenta for nano-sized materials. Environ Health Perspect, 118, 432–436.
44. Cole M, Lindeque P, Fileman E, Halsband, Goodhead RM, Moger J, Galloway T. (2013). Microplastic ingestion by
zooplankton. Environ Sci Technol, 47, 6646–6655.
45. Eriksson C, Burton H. (2003). Origins and biological accumulation of small plastic particles in fur seals from Macquarie
Island. AMBIO, 32, 380–384.
46. Gross M. (2013). Plastic waste is all at sea. Curr Biol, 23(4), R135–R137.
47. Engler RE. (2012). The complex interaction between marine debris and toxic chemicals in the ocean. Environ Sci Technol,
46(22), 12302–12315.
48. PlasticsEurope. (2014). China leads global plastics production while Europe ranks second. Brussels, Belgium:
PlasticsEurope AISBL. [Link]/Xgx5Is (accessed 8 November, 2015).
49. Havens KJ, Bilkovic DM, Stanhope DM, Angstadt KT. (2013). Method for reducing marine pollution using
polyhydroxyalkanoate microbeads. US Patent, US 20140026916 A1.
50. McCormick A, Hoellein TJ, Mason SA, Schluep J, Kelly JJ. (2014). Microplastic is an abundant and distinct microbial
habitat in an urban river. Environ Sci Technol, 48(20), 11863–11871.
Review Article