Processing math: 100%

Ya-ci Liu, Lin Wu, Guo-wei Shi, Sheng-wei Cao, Ya-song Li, 2022. Characteristics and sources of microplastic pollution in the water and sediments of the Jinjiang River Basin, Fujian Province, China, China Geology, 5, 429-438. doi: 10.31035/cg2022051
Citation: Ya-ci Liu, Lin Wu, Guo-wei Shi, Sheng-wei Cao, Ya-song Li, 2022. Characteristics and sources of microplastic pollution in the water and sediments of the Jinjiang River Basin, Fujian Province, China, China Geology, 5, 429-438. doi: 10.31035/cg2022051

Characteristics and sources of microplastic pollution in the water and sediments of the Jinjiang River Basin, Fujian Province, China

More Information
  • Microplastic pollution is widely distributed from surface water to sediments to groundwater vertically and from land to the ocean horizontally. This study collected samples from surface water, groundwater, and sediments from upper to lower reaches and then to the estuary in 16 typical areas in the Jinjiang River Basin, Fujian Province, China. Afterward, it determined the components and abundance of the microplastics and analyzed the possible microplastic sources through principal component analysis (PCA). As a result, seven main components of microplastics were detected, i.e., polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyformaldehyde (POM), nylon 6 (PA6), and polystyrene (PS). Among them, PE and PP were found to have the highest proportion in the surface water and sediments and in the groundwater, respectively. The surface water, groundwater, and sediments had average microplastic abundance of 1.6 n/L, 2.7 n/L and 33.8 n/kg, respectively. The microplastics in the sediments had the largest particle size, while those in the groundwater had the smallest particle size. Compared with water bodies and sediments in other areas, those in the study area generally have medium-low-level microplastic abundance. Three pollution sources were determined according to PCA, i.e., the dominant agriculture-forestry-fishery source, domestic wastewater, and industrial production. This study can provide a scientific basis for the control of microplastics in rivers.

  • Plastics are ubiquitous in our daily life. The annual global production of plastics soared from 234×106 t in 2000 to 460×106 t in 2019, and accordingly, the plastic waste increased from 156×106 t in 2000 to 353×106 t in 2019 (OECD, 2022). While plastic supplies bring convenience to our lives, improper plastic waste management leads to severe ecological problems (Song B et al. 2013; Zhang YS et al., 2017). It is estimated that 48×103‒12.7×106 t of plastic waste enters the sea from land every year (Jambeck JR et al., 2015). The top 20 rivers with the most severe plastic pollution, mostly located in Asia, account for 67% of the global total and 74% of plastics are mainly emitted in the wet season from May to October (Lebreton L et al., 2017).

    Microplastics refer to plastic particles with sizes less than 5 mm. Because of their exceptional transmissibility, microplastics have been found in oceans, lakes, rivers, and even drinking water (Makhdoumi P et al., 2021). Microplastics in oceans mainly originate from land, with rivers serving as important transfer media. Moreover, 88%‒95% of microplastics is transported to estuaries by rivers (Schmid C et al., 2017). As transitional zones between freshwater and marine systems, estuaries witness the accumulation of high concentrations of microplastics (Xiong W et al., 2022). For instance, the Pearl River Delta has an estimated annual flux of microplastics into the sea of 2.4×103‒3.8×103 t (Mai L et al., 2019). Microplastics in oceans can be enriched and transferred into human bodies via the food chain consisting of phytoplankton, zooplankton, and mammals. After entering an organism, microplastics will be transported to and accumulate in many organs. Dutch scientists (Leslie HA et al. 2022) recently published a paper stating that they first discovered microplastics in human blood and that these microplastics were also able to enter human organs. This paper attracted global attention, once again bringing microplastic pollution to the public. In addition, owing to their high specific surface area and colloidal fluidity, microplastics can easily adsorb pollutants and carry them over long distances, posing a potential threat to ecosystems and human health.

    The Jinjiang River, which is the largest river in Quanzhou City, Fujian Province, China, eventually flows from the Quanzhou Bay into the sea. Since river inflow is an important source of marine plastics, this study focused on the abundance and composition of microplastics in river surface water, sediments, and groundwater from the Jinjiang River Basin to the estuary of the Quanzhou Bay. The study analyzed the vertical distribution of microplastics from surface water to sediments and then to groundwater, as well as the horizontal distribution from land to the sea, aiming to provide a scientific basis for river management.

    The Jinjiang River has a length of 182 km and a drainage area of 5629 km2. It flows through cities such as Yongchun, Anxi, Nan’an, Jinjiang, Licheng, and Fengze from northwest to southeast. The Jinjiang River has two tributaries in its upper reaches, namely the East River and the West River. The East River originates in Yunlu Village, Chengxiang Township, Yongchun County, with a drainage area of 1917 km2. The West River originates in Tiaozhou Village, Gande Township, Anxi County. The two tributaries meet at Shuangxikou, Jingdou Village, Fengzhou Town, Nan'an City and are then collectively called the Jinjiang River, which eventually enters the sea at Jinjiang City (Fig. 1). The Jinjiang River Basin has landforms of low hills of volcanic rocks in central Fujian and the granite hills and plains along the southeastern coast. Its terrain is high in the northwest and low in the southeast. The soil in the basin mainly consists of red soil and red laterite soil. Most of the mountains in the basin are covered by vegetation, with a forest cover of 51.15%. The basin has a south subtropical climate, with an average annual temperature of 17 ‒21 °C and average annual precipitation of 1651.6 mm, of which the precipitation from May to September accounts for 60%‒70%.

    Figure 1.  Location of the Jinjiang River Basin and the sampling sites

    The Jinjiang River Basin is the main source of drinking water in Quanzhou City. The lower reaches of the Jinjiang River are one of the most economically developed areas in Fujian Province, and thus the Jinjiang River plays a particularly important role in the sustainable development of the Jinjiang River Basin. According to the Quanzhou Monthly Report on Water Environment Quality (January 2022), the 19 provincially controlled sections in the Jinjiang River Basin consist of 10 sections with Class-II water quality, eight sections with Class-III water quality, and one section with Class-V water quality, with sections with class-II and -III water quality accounting for 94.7%. The main water pollution in the Jinjiang River Basin originates from chemical, residential, coal, iron, manganese, and agricultural production (Ma L et al., 2012) and the pollutants mainly include CODMn, NH3-N and TP (Ma L et al., 2015).

    This study selected 16 evenly spaced sampling sites along the Jinjiang River Basin, at which 16 sets of samples of surface water (SW1‒SW16), groundwater (GW1‒GW16), and sediments (S1–S16) were collected from June to July, 2020 (Fig. 1, Table 1). The sampling sites covered the areas from the upper to the lower reaches (including the West River and the East River) and then to the estuary of the Quanzhou Bay. The sampling sites were located in the lower reaches of domestic and industrial effluent discharges. Surface water and sediments were sampled at the same sampling sites, and groundwater samples were taken from domestic wells in villages near the surface water sampling sites. Each set of samples comprises 4 L of surface water, 4 L of groundwater, and at least 100 g of sediments. All water and sediment samples were placed in brown glass bottles stored in an incubator containing ice and then sent to the laboratory for testing as soon as possible.

    Table 1.  Samples of the surface water, groundwater and sediments from the Jinjiang River Basin.
    Surface waterGroundwaterSediments
    Sample No.Sampling siteTemperature of surface water /°CSample No.Depth/mGroundwater level/mWell wallGroundwater typeSample No.Organic matter content
    /(g/kg)
    SW1River29.6GW18.03.8StonesPore waterS113
    SW2River33.4GW213.49.8CementPore waterS215
    SW3River32.9GW311.07.9CementPore waterS36
    SW4River25.0GW47.02.1CementPore waterS411
    SW5River31.2GW56.05.1CementPore waterS516
    SW6River31.2GW610.00.9CementPore waterS628
    SW7Estuary31.1GW75.04.4CementPore waterS722
    SW8Estuary30.8GW83.52.3BricksPore waterS827
    SW9Bay28.7GW910.03.4BricksPore waterS938
    SW10Bay28.8GW1010.01.6BricksPore waterS1020
    SW11Bay25.6GW118.04.3StonesPore waterS112
    SW12Bay30.5GW1210.05.4BricksPore waterS1240
    SW13Bay30.0GW136.02.8StonesPore waterS1321
    SW14Bay30.6GW148.02.3CementPore waterS1422
    SW15Bay30.9GW1510.02.3CementPore waterS158
    SW16Bay27.8GW166.01.6CementPore waterS1610
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    (i) Surface water

    A sample of 4 L surface water was filtered using a 1500-mesh SS316 filter, and then the filter was put into a beaker. Afterward, 50 mL of 30% H2O2 solution was added to the beaker to soak the filter, and then the beaker was placed into a water bath. After ultrasonic treatment for 20 mins, the filter was taken out and rinsed with a small amount of 30% H2O2 solution. Subsequently, a cleaning solution was added to the soaking solution in the beaker, which was then placed into a 60°C water bath. After 12 hours, the mixture was taken out and passed through a 1500-mesh SS316 filter. The sides of the beaker and the filter were washed with pure water. The filter was then put into 100 mL of saturated NaCl solution. The NaCl cleaning solution and the soaking solution were mixed and covered with aluminum foil, followed by standing for 12 hours. The supernatant was filtered out using a 1500-mesh SS316 filter. Then, the filter was rinsed repeatedly with ultra-pure water to remove NaCl residues and placed in a glass Petri dish to dry before tests.

    (ii) Groundwater

    A sample of 4 L groundwater was filtered using a 1500-mesh SS316 filter, and then the filter was put into a beaker. Afterward, 50 mL of 30% H2O2 solution was added to the beaker to soak the filter, and then the beaker was put into a water bath. After ultrasonic treatment for 20 mins, the filter was taken out and rinsed with a small amount of 30% H2O2 solution. Subsequently, a cleaning solution was added to the soaking solution in the beaker, which was then covered with aluminum foil and placed into a 60°C water bath. After 12 hours, the mixture was taken out and filtered using a 1500-mesh SS316 filter. Afterward, the sides of the beaker and the filter were washed with ultra-pure water, and then the filter was placed in a glass Petri dish to dry before tests.

    (iii) Sediments

    A sample of 100±1 g sediments was placed in a beaker, and then 300 mL of saturated NaCl solution was added to it. Afterward, the beaker was covered with aluminum foil and then placed in a heated magnetic agitator for 1 h at the temperature of 60°C and a rotation speed of 800 rpm. After that, the beaker was allowed to stand for 12 hours. The supernatant was then placed into another beaker, and a saturated NaCl solution was again added to the sediments. These steps of heating, stirring, standing, and taking the supernatant were repeated twice more. The supernatants obtained after conducting these steps three times were mixed and allowed to stand for 12 hours. The upper layer of the supernatant was taken and filtered using a 500-mesh SS316 filter. Afterward, the supernatant was repeatedly cleaned using ultra-pure water to remove NaCl residues. The filter was placed into a beaker, and then 50 mL of 30% H2O2 solution was added to soak the filter. After ultrasonic treatment for 20 mins, the filter was taken out and rinsed with a small amount of 30% H2O2 solution. Subsequently, a cleaning solution was added to the soaking solution in the beaker, which was then covered with aluminum foil and placed into a 60°C water bath. After 12 hours, the mixture was taken out and passed through a 1500-mesh SS316 filter. The sides of the beaker and the filter were rinsed with ultra-pure water, and then the filter was placed in a glass Petri dish to dry before tests.

    Test instrument: A Confocal Laser Raman Spectrometer (Horiba LabRAM Aramis).

    Operating conditions of the instrument: Laser wavelength: 532 nm; laser power: 11 mW; spectral range: 100–3500/cm; grating: 300, and microscope lens: 10×.

    Test process: The filter was stuck to the slide. A positioning mark was made on the edge of the filter, and then the filter was placed on the loading platform, which was then moved point by point to identify the materials intercepted by the filter. The Raman spectra of the materials were collected and compared with the standard spectra to determine the composition of the materials. Meanwhile, the sizes of the materials were recorded.

    The microplastic abundance in surface water and groundwater was expressed as the microplastic particle number per liter (n/L), and that in sediments was expressed as the microplastic particle number per kg (n/kg). The possible sources of microplastics were analyzed through PCA in software SPSS version 19.

    Six microplastic components were detected in the surface water samples (Table 2), namely PE (57%), PP (23%), PVC (7%), PET (7%), PA6 (4%), and PS (3%), revealing that PE accounts for the highest proportion in surface water and that PE and PP accounted for 80% in the surface water in total. The microplastics corresponding to different sampling sites along the Jinjiang River Basin had different compositions, but they mainly comprised PE. PE was also detected in the surface water samples SW12 and SW13.

    Table 2.  Component proportion (%) of microplastics in surface water, groundwater, and sediment from the Jinjiang River Basin.
    TypeSample No.PEPPPVCPETPA6PSPOM
    Surface waterSW156221111000
    SW2632560600
    SW350130132500
    SW4830017000
    SW550103000100
    SW6500050000
    SW73333033000
    SW85033001700
    SW944331100110
    SW105025000250
    SW116020020000
    SW12100000000
    SW13100000000
    SW14505000000
    SW153850130000
    SW16673300000
    GroundwaterGW1005000500
    GW2001000000
    GW3075000025
    GW4075250000
    GW5000100000
    GW625252525000
    GW7000000100
    GW8750250000
    GW90000000
    GW1009050050
    GW110000000
    GW12067033000
    GW130000000
    GW1460200101000
    GW15730270000
    GW16386200000
    SedimentS1673300000
    S2067330000
    S33303300330
    S4336700000
    S50255000250
    S62550000250
    S7752500000
    S8750025000
    S9050500000
    S106020020000
    S11500000500
    S122957140000
    S13001000000
    S14505000000
    S15750250000
    S16100000000
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    A total of 102 microplastics were detected in 16 surface water samples, with average abundance of 1.6 n/L. The results indicated that the microplastic abundance gradually decreased from the upper to the lower reaches and then to the bay (Fig. 2a). Sample SW2 located in the West River in Nan'an City yielded the highest microplastic abundance of 4 n/L, and the urban source was an important source of microplastics of SW2. Sample SW13 located on the northern bank of the estuary had the lowest abundance (0.5 n/L). The sampling site of SW13 was far from cities and farmland and thus was less affected by the artificial input of microplastics. The microplastics in the surface water samples had small particle sizes, including 40‒100 µm (45%), 150‒500 µm (44%), and > 500 µm (11%).

    Figure 2.  Microplastics abundance in surface water (a), groundwater (b) and sediment (c) of Jinjiang River Basin.

    Seven microplastic components were detected in the groundwater samples (Table 2), namely PP (54%), PE (33%), PVC (6%), PET (2%), POM (2%), PA6 (1%), and PS (1%), revealing that PP accounted for the highest proportion in the groundwater and that PE and PP accounted for 87% in total. The microplastics corresponding to different sampling sites had different compositions. The microplastic compositions of the East and West rivers in the upper reaches were significantly different from that in the lower reaches. Specifically, the microplastics in groundwater of the East River consisted of PVC and PS, while those in groundwater of the West River comprised PVC. By contrast, PP and POM were recorded for the sampling sites at the intersection of the East River and West rivers. The microplastics in groundwater of the northern and southern coasts of the Quanzhou Bay also had different compositions and were dominated by PE and PP, respectively. Trace microplastics (0.25 n/L) were detected in the groundwater samples GW9, GW11, and GW13, but their compositions were uncertain.

    A total of 173 microplastics were detected in 16 groundwater samples, with average abundance of 2.7 n/L. The upper reaches of the basin had low microplastic abundance ( 1 n/L; Fig. 2b). The four groundwater samples with high microplastic abundance (GW10, GW14, GW15 and GW16) sampled around the Quanzhou Bay. GW16, sampled from the northern bank of the Quanzhou Bay, had the highest microplastic abundance (25 n/L), which was significantly higher than that of other samples, and the microplastics in sample GW16 included PP and PE. According to Fig. 3, the microplastic pollution of groundwater in the coastal zone was more severe than that of the groundwater along rivers. The microplastics in the groundwater samples had small particle sizes, including 10‒100 µm (84%), 150‒500 µm (15%), and > 500 µm (1%). Microplastics in the groundwater mainly originate from soil and surface water. Those with a large particle size are easily intercepted by the soil in the vadose zone, while those with a small particle size are more likely to enter the groundwater through the vadose zone. Frequent water exchange between surface water and groundwater enables microplastics in surface water to enter the groundwater (Gong JS et al., 2014; Pu SY et al., 2020). Microplastics in soil enter groundwater through soil pores or biological caves via the action of biology, gravity, and leaching (Qi R et al., 2020). Besides soil and surface water, sewage directly discharged into the ground is also a source of microplastic pollution in the groundwater.

    Figure 3.  Comparison of microplastics composition (a), particle sizes (b) and abundance in surface water, groundwater and sediment of Jinjiang River Basin.

    Five microplastic components were detected in sediments (Table 2), namely PE (43%), PP (30%), PVC (17%), PS (7%), and PET (4%), revealing that PE accounted for the highest proportion in the sediments and that PE and PP accounted for 73% in total. The microplastics corresponding to different sampling sites had different compositions. For instance, the microplastics detected in the coastal sediments of the Quanzhou Bay were mainly composed of PE.

    A total of 54 microplastics were detected in the 16 sediment samples from the basin, with average abundance of 33.8 n/kg. The detection results show that the microplastic abundance in the sediments is stable from the upper reaches of the basin to the estuary. The microplastic abundance was 30 n/kg in samples S1–S4 and 40 n/kg in samples S5–S8 (Fig. 2c). The sediment samples from different sampling sites around the Quanzhou Bay had greatly different microplastic abundance. Specifically, samples S10, S12 and S15 had higher microplastic abundance than other sediment samples, suggesting that microplastic pollution in coastal sediments was severe. Among the 16 sediment samples, sample S12 from the southern bank of the Quanzhou Bay had the highest microplastic abundance of 70 n/kg. This sample was collected from a dock with many large fishing boats, household garbage, and fishing nets, which led to increased microplastic pollution. Sample S12 also had the highest organic matter content of 40 g/kg (Table 1), which led to the easy interception of microplastics. This may be the reason for the highest microplastic abundance of this sample. The microplastics had small particle sizes, including 50‒100 µm (13%), 150‒500 µm (74%), and >500 µm (13%).

    The microplastics in the surface water from the upper to the lower reaches had similar main components dominated by PE. By contrast, the microplastics in the groundwater at different locations from the upper to lower reaches had greatly different main compositions. The groundwater has poorer connectivity than the surface water, leading to significant differences in the microplastic composition in groundwater at different locations. The components and particle sizes of microplastics detected in surface water, groundwater, and sediments were compared (Figs. 3a, b). According to the comparison results, PE had the largest proportion in the microplastic components in the surface water and sediments, while PP accounted for the largest proportion in the microplastic components in the groundwater. PE in surface water is prone to precipitate into the sediments and is also easy to migrate a long way and finally reach the bay. POM was only detected in groundwater. The different microplastic compositions in surface water, groundwater, and sediments indicate that the microplastic composition is highly correlated with the bearing media.

    Table 3.  Comparison of microplastic abundance in surface water, groundwater and sediment.
    TypeStudy areaMicroplastic abundance/(n/L)
    Surface waterJinjiang River, China0.5–4 (this study)
    Shuangtaizi River of Liaoning, China1.33±0.67–7.33±3.93 (Li JN et al., 2021)
    Daliao River of Liaoning, China3.00±1.15–11.00±3.51 (Li JN et al., 2021)
    Manas River, Xinjiang, China24±4–48±9 (Wang GL, 2020)
    Yangtze estuary, China0.24–1.35 (Luo W, 2019)
    Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, China0.247–2.686 (Liu RP et al., 2021a)
    Yellow River, China5.358–654 (Liu RP et al., 2021b)
    Ciwalengke River, Indonesia5.85±3.28 (Alam FC et al., 2019)
    Itchen River, Britain1.15 (Gallagher A et al., 2015)
    Hudson River, USA0.98 (Miller RZ et al., 2017)
    San Gabriel River, USA0.41 (Moore CJ et al., 2011)
    GroundwaterJinjiang River, China0.25–5.25 (this study)
    Shallow aquifer, Bacchus Marsh, Australia16–97 (Samandra S et al., 2022)
    Karst aquifer of Illinois, USA0.86–15.2 (Panno SV et al., 2019)
    Northern Germany0–7 (Mintenig SM et al., 2019)
    Coastal areas of southern India0–4.3 (Selvam S et al., 2021)
    Southeast coast of the Bay of Bengal2–80 (Ramakrishnan R et al., 2021)
    SedimentJinjiang River, China20–70 (this study)
    Liaohe river, China(20.00±34.64)–(193.33±172.43) (Han LH et al., 2020)
    Yangtze River estuary, China20–340 (Peng G et al., 2017b)
    Yellow River, China43.57-615 (Liu RP et al., 2021b)
    Urban freshwater rivers, Shanghai, China53–723 (Peng G et al., 2017a)
    Wei River, China360–1320 (Ding L et al., 2019)
    Rhine River, Germany228–3763 (Klein S et al., 2015)
    Atoac River in Puebla, Mexico(833.33±80.79)–(1633.34±202.56) (Shruti VC et al., 2019)
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The microplastics in groundwater generally have smaller particle sizes than those in surface water and sediments. The results of this study show that 84% of microplastics in groundwater have a particle size of 10‒100 μm and only 1% of them have particle sizes greater than 500 μm. Because the hydrodynamic condition is the key factor controlling the microplastic distribution in river water and sediments, microplastics with large particle sizes are more likely to precipitate into sediments. Therefore, the microplastics in sediments generally have larger particle sizes than those in surface water and groundwater, with 74% of microplastics in sediments having a particle size of 150‒500 μm.

    The microplastic abundance of samples of surface water, groundwater, and sediments collected at 16 sets of different sampling sites was compared (Fig. 3c). The microplastic abundance in surface water was greater than or equal to that in groundwater at the sampling sites except for sites 10, 14, 15 and 16 near the coastal zone of the Quanzhou Bay, at which the microplastic abundance in groundwater was higher than that in surface water. In particular, the groundwater at sampling site 16 had the highest microplastic abundance of 25 n/L. There was no significant correlation (p > 0.05) between the microplastic abundance of surface water, groundwater, and sediments.

    The microplastic abundance in surface water obtained in this study was compared with that in previous studies, yielding the following results (Table 3). The microplastic abundance in the surface water in the study area is significantly lower than that in the Yellow River and Manas River in China, and is lower than that in the Daliao River, China and the Ciwalengke River, Indonesia. It approximates that in the Shuangtaizi River, China and the Itchen River, Britain, but is higher than that in the Yangtze Estuary, Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, the Hudson River and the San Gabriel River. Overall, the microplastic abundance in the surface water of the Jinjiang River Basin is at a medium-low level, and the microplastic distribution in coastal zones of the basin may be affected by coastal waves, tides, and flows. Microplastics in surface water are harmful and are prone to enter soil through surface runoff and agricultural irrigation, leading to microplastic pollution in the soil. Groundwater may be polluted due to its connection with surface water. Microplastics may be transmitted to human bodies through accumulation in fish.

    At present, there are only a few studies of microplastic pollution in groundwater. The microplastic abundance in groundwater in this study was compared with that in existing studies (Table 3), yielding the following results. The microplastic abundance in groundwater in the study area is lower than that in the shallow aquifer of Bacchus Marsh, Australia, and approximates that in the coastal areas of southern India and northern Germany. The maximum microplastic abundance in groundwater in the study area is lower than that in the karst aquifer of Illinois, U.S., and the southeastern coast of the Bay of Bengal. Overall, the microplastic abundance in the groundwater of the Jinjiang River Basin is at a medium-low level.

    The microplastic abundance in sediments in this study was compared with that in previous studies (Table 3), and the results are as follows. The microplastic abundance in sediments in the study area is significantly lower than that in the Wei River and Yellow River in China, the Rhine River in Germany, and the Atoac River in Puebla, Mexico. The lowest microplastic abundance in the sediments of the Jinjiang River Basin is similar to that in the Liaohe River, the Yangtze River estuary, and the Shanghai urban freshwater rivers in China, while the highest abundance in the sediments of the Jinjiang River Basin is significantly lower than that in these rivers. Overall, the microplastic abundance in the sediments of the Jinjiang River Basin is low.

    PCA was carried out for the data on microplastics in the water bodies and sediments of the Jinjiang River Basin. As a result, three principal components were extracted (Table 4), and they had a cumulative contribution rate of 66.505%. The microplastics with a large load on principal component 1 consist of PE and PP, those with a large load on principal component 2 comprise PVC, PET, PA6, and PS, and those with a large load on principal component 3 consist of POM.

    Table 4.  Microplastic sources of the water bodies and sediments of the Jinjiang River Basin based on the principal component analysis (PCA).
    Microplastic componentAgriculture-forestry-fisheriesDomestic wastewaterIndustrial production
    PE0.9640.0850.016
    PP0.9380.213−0.107
    PVC−0.1560.6440.312
    PET0.0080.7150.300
    PA60.1690.4640.364
    PS−0.1640.6570.191
    POM−0.116−0.0910.867
    Contribution rate/%27.18023.34015.985
    Accumulative contribution/%27.18050.52066.505
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    More than one-half of PE is used for film products, followed by pipes, injection molding products, and wire wrapping layers. PP in China is mainly used for woven bags, packaging bags, and strapping ropes, which consume approximately 30% of the total PP (Tang QS, 2018). Agricultural activities are the main source of microplastics in soil owing to the plastic mulching, sewage irrigation, and sludge fertilization in farmland (Yan YC et al., 2022). However, the microplastics in farmland soil have relatively simple composition and mainly consist of PP (50.51%) and PE (43.43%), which account for more than 90% of the microplastics in soil (Liu M et al., 2018). This result indicates that PP and PE are the main components of microplastic pollution in farmland. Forestry and fisheries are well developed in the Jinjiang River Basin and the Quanzhou Bay, especially in the Quanzhou Bay, with fisheries for mariculture and marine capture have been established. Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries use plastics, fishing nets, and cages, which are mainly composed of PE and PP and all can cause plastic pollution. Therefore, the principal component 1 associated with PE and PP accounted for the source in agriculture, forestry, and fisheries.

    PVC is closely related to daily life and can be found in items such as shoes, artificial leather, toys, mineral water bottles, and raincoats. PET can be used to manufacture polyester, bottles, and electronic appliances. PA6 is nylon and is mainly used in synthetic fibers to be employed in fields such as textile clothing. PS is frequently used to make foam plastic products, disposable plastic tableware, and transparent CD cases, all of which are common in daily life. Dutch researchers Leslie HA et al. (2022) discovered PET plastic in one-half of volunteers' blood samples and PS in more than one-third of volunteers' blood samples. They noted that PET plastic is widely used to manufacture beverage bottles and PS is used to produce many products such as disposable food containers. Jinjiang City, located in the Jinjiang River Basin, has a prosperous shoe-making industry, and a large market named Jinjiang International Shoes Spinning is located near the Jinjiang River. Textile washing in daily life, as well as the ubiquitous plastic bottles and packages, sheds large numbers of microplastics into domestic wastewater. More than 1900 fibers can be carried into wastewater from a single washing item and are then discharged into urban waterways (Browne MA et al., 2011). Wastewater treatment plants rarely carry out professional treatment of microplastics, enabling most of the microplastics to be discharged into watercourses (Falco FD et al. 2017). This study revealed that PVC, PET, PA6, and PS detected in the Jinjiang River mainly originate from domestic wastewater, which can be regarded as principal component 2.

    POM, one of the five general engineering plastics, has excellent comprehensive performance and similar hardness, strength, and rigidity to metal. Therefore, principal component 3 associated with POM is interpreted as industrial production. POM was only detected in groundwater in this study, indicating that POM in groundwater did not originate from surface water and may be directly discharged into groundwater by factories. The groundwater sample GW7 collected from Chidian Town, Jinjiang City, had microplastic abundance of 3 n/L, and the microplastics in this sample consisted of only POM. Huang YY et al. (2015) revealed that multiple indexes of groundwater in Chidian Town exceeded those of Class-III groundwater stipulated in GB/T 14848-2017 Standard for Groundwater Quality—a national standard of China. The reason for this finding is that there are industrial enterprises in this area, and the discharged industrial sewage is an important source of groundwater pollution. In this study, POM was detected at the sampling site of GW7 probably due to the direct discharge of industrial wastewater in this area.

    According to the above analysis, the microplastic sources in the Jinjiang River Basin mainly include the dominant agriculture-forestry-fishery source, domestic wastewater, and industrial production. However, there is a lack of targeted policies and systems at the national level for these microplastic sources. Moreover, current management in the basin fails to focus on microplastics, and the investment, monitoring, and impact assessment for microplastics in the basin are all insufficient. For these reasons, multi-party cooperation and effective supervision and control policies are yet to be established for the basin.

    Microplastic pollution is widely distributed from surface water to sediments to groundwater vertically and from land to the ocean horizontally. Seven main microplastic components were detected in the water bodies and sediments of the Jinjiang River Basin. Among them, PE has the largest proportion in the surface water and sediments, and PP accounts for the largest proportion in the groundwater. The microplastic abundance in the surface water is greater than or equal to that in groundwater at most sampling sites. The microplastics in the groundwater have the smallest overall particle size, while those in the sediments have the largest particle size. Compared with other areas, the study area has medium-low-level microplastic abundance in general. Three pollution sources were determined according to PCA, i.e., the dominant agriculture-forestry-fishery source, domestic wastewater, and industrial production.

    Different from common pollutants, there is no targeted treatment or fast and convenient monitoring techniques for microplastics, which are prone to be discharged into the environment through wastewater and cannot be completely removed. Therefore, a sound regulatory system is yet to be established to enhance public understanding of the harm of microplastic pollution and to effectively curb microplastic pollution at source. The purpose is to reduce the threat of microplastics to the ecological environment and human health.

    Ya-Ci Liu and Ya-Song Li conceived of the presented idea. Lin Wu and Guo-Wei Shi contributed to sample preparation. Sheng-Wei Cao verified the analytical methods. All authors discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript.

    The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

    This research was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (41907175 and 41902259), and China Geological Survey project (DD20190303).

  • Alam FC, Sembiring E, Muntalif BS, Suendo V. 2019. Microplastic distribution in surface water and sediment river around slum and industrial area (case study: Ciwalengke River, Majalaya district, Indonesia). Chemosphere, 224, 637–645. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.02.188.

    CrossRef Google Scholar

    Browne MA, Crump P, Niven SJ, Teuten E, Tonkin A, Galloway T, Thompson R. 2011. Accumulation of microplastic on shorelines woldwide: Sources and sinks. Environmental Science and Technology, 45(21), 9175–9179. doi: 10.1021/es201811s.

    CrossRef Google Scholar

    Christian, Schmid, Tobias, Krauth, Stephan, Wagner. 2017. Export of Plastic Debris by Rivers into the Sea. Environmental Science and Technology, 51(21), 12246–12253. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.7b02368.

    CrossRef Google Scholar

    Ding L, Mao Rf, Guo X, Yang X, Zhang Q, Yang C. 2019. Microplastics in surface waters and sediments of the Wei River, in the northwest of China. Science of The Total Environment, 667(1), 427–434. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.332.

    CrossRef Google Scholar

    Falco FD, Gullo MP, Gentile G, Pace ED, Avella M. 2017. Evaluation of microplastic release caused by textile washing processes of synthetic fabrics. Environmental Pollution, 236, 916–925. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.10.057.

    CrossRef Google Scholar

    Gallagher A, Rees A, Rowe R, Stevens J, Wright P. 2016. Microplastics in the Solent estuarine complex, UK: An initial assessment. Marine Pollution Bulletin:S0025326X15001903, 102, 243–249. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.04.002.

    CrossRef Google Scholar

    Gong JS, Zhu CF, Ye NJ, Wang HS, Zhou KE, Hou LL. 2014. Experimental study of impact of a certain polluted river on groundwater along river bank in Southeast China. Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 2(3), 8–16.

    Google Scholar

    Huang YY, Chen WC, Su JY. 2015. An evaluation of the geochemical characteristics and environmental quality of the shallow groundwater in Jinjiang China. Journal of Chongqing Normal University (Natural Science), 32(2), 154–161 (in Chinese with English abstract). doi: 10.11721/cqnuj20150227.

    CrossRef Google Scholar

    Han LH, Li QL, Xu L, Lu AX, Gong WW, Wei Q. 2020. The pollution characteristics of microplastics in Daliao River sediments. China Environmental Science, 40(4), 1649–16586 (in Chinese with English abstract). doi: 10.19674/j.cnki.issn1000-6923.2020.0184.

    CrossRef Google Scholar

    Jambeck JR, Geyer R, Wilcox C, Siegler TR, Perryman M, Andrady A, Narayan R, Law KL. 2015. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science, 347, 768–771. doi: 10.1126/science.1260352.

    CrossRef Google Scholar

    Klein S, Worch E, Knepper TP. 2015. Occurrence and Spatial Distribution of Microplastics in River Shore Sediments of the Rhine-Main Area in Germany. Environmental Science and Technology, 49, 6070–6076. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b00492.

    CrossRef Google Scholar

    Lebreton L, Joost V, Damsteeg JW, Slat B, Andrady A, Reisser J. 2017. River plastic emissions to the world's oceans. Nature Communications, 8, 15611. doi: 10.1038/ncomms15611.

    CrossRef Google Scholar

    Leslie HA, J. M. van Velzen M, Brandsma SH, Vethaak D, Garcia-Vallejo JJ, Lamoree MH. 2022. Discovery and quantification of plastic particle pollution in human blood. Environment International, 163, 107199. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2022.107199.

    CrossRef Google Scholar

    Li JN, Ling W, Shen Q, He YN, Xu XY, Chen X, An LH. 2021. Characteristics and Distribution of Microplastics in Surface Water from Shuangtaizi River and Daliao River. Journal of Ecotoxicology, 16(3), 192–199 (in Chinese with English abstract). doi: 10.7524/AJE.1673-5897.20201013002.

    CrossRef Google Scholar

    Liu M, Lu S, Yang S, Lei L, Hu J, Lv W, Zhou W, Cao C, Shi H, Yang X, He D. 2018. Microplastic and mesoplastic pollution in farmland soils in suburbs of Shanghai, China. Environmental Pollution, 242, 855–862. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.07.051.

    CrossRef Google Scholar

    Liu RP, Dong Y, Quan GC, Zhu H, Xu YN, Elwardany RM. 2021a. Microplastic pollution in surface water and sediments of Qinghai-Tibet Plateau: Current status and causes. China Geology, 4(1), 178–184. doi: 10.31035/cg2021011.

    CrossRef Google Scholar

    Liu RP, Li ZZ, Liu F, Dong Y, Jiao JG, Sun PP, Elwardany RM. 2021b. Microplastic pollution in Yellow River, China: Current status and research progress of biotoxicological effects. China Geology, 4(4), 585–592. doi: 10.31035/cg2021081.

    CrossRef Google Scholar

    Luo W, Su L, Craig NJ, Du F, Wu C, Shi H. 2019. Comparison of microplastic pollution in different water bodies from urban creeks to coastal waters. Environmental Pollution, 246, 174–182. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.11.081.

    CrossRef Google Scholar

    Ma L, Teng YG, Lin XY, Wang J S, Pan C Z. 2012. Sources of water pollution in the Jinjiang River Basin. Journal of Beijing Normal University (Natural Science), 48(5), 471–475 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    Google Scholar

    Ma L, Teng YG, Lin XY, Wang J S. 2015. Spatial distribution of pollution load and critical source area identification in the Jinjiang River Basin. China Environmental Science, 35(12), 3679–3688 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    Google Scholar

    Mai L, You SN, He H, Bao LJ, Zeng EY. 2019. Riverine microplastic pollution in the pearl River Delta, China: Are modeled estimates accurate? Environmental Science and Technology, 53(20), 11810–11817. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b04838.

    Google Scholar

    Makhdoumi P, Amin AA, Karimi H, Pirsaheb M, Kim H, Hossini H. 2021. Occurrence of microplastic particles in the most popular Iranian bottled mineral water brands and an assessment of human exposure. Journal of Water Process Engineering, 39, 101708. doi: 10.1016/j.jwpe.2020.101708.

    CrossRef Google Scholar

    Miller RZ, Watts AJR, Winslow BO, Galloway TS, Barrows APW. 2017. Mountains to the sea: River study of plastic and non-plastic microfiber pollution in the northeast USA. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 124, 245–251. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.07.028.

    CrossRef Google Scholar

    Mintenig SM, Löder MGJ, Primpke S, Gerdts G. 2019. Low numbers of microplastics detected in drinking water from ground water sources. Science of The Total Environment, 648, 631–635. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.178.

    CrossRef Google Scholar

    Moore CJ, Lattin GL, Zellers AF. 2011. Quantity and type of plastic debris flowing from two urban rivers to coastal waters and beaches of Southern California. Revista de Gestà £ o Costeira Integrada, 11(1), 65–73. doi: 10.5894/rgci194.

    CrossRef Google Scholar

    Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2022. Global plastics outlook: Economic drivers, environmental impacts and policy options. doi: 10.1787/de747aef-cn.

    Google Scholar

    Panno SV, Kelly WR, Scott J, Zheng W, McNeish RE, Holm N, Hoellein TJ, Baranski EL. 2019. Microplastic contamination in karst groundwater systems. Groundwater, 57, 189–196. doi: 10.1111/gwat.12862.

    CrossRef Google Scholar

    Peng G, Xu P, Zhu B, Bai M, Li D. 2017a. Microplastics in freshwater river sediments in Shanghai, China: A case study of risk assessment in mega-cities. Environmental Pollution, 234, 448–456. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.11.034.

    CrossRef Google Scholar

    Peng G, Zhu B, Yang D, Su L, Shi H, Li D. 2017b. Microplastics in sediments of the Changjiang Estuary, China. Environmental Pollution, 225, 283–290. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.12.064.

    CrossRef Google Scholar

    Pu SY, Zhang Y, Lu X. 2020. Review on the environmental behavior and ecotoxicity of microplastics in soil-groundwater. Asian Journal of Ecotoxicology, 15(1), 44–55 (in Chinese with English abstract). doi: 10.7524/AJE.1673-5897.20190923002.

    CrossRef Google Scholar

    Qi R, Jones DL, Li Z, Liu Q, Yan C. 2020. Behavior of microplastics and plastic film residues in the soil environment: A critical review. The Science of the Total Environment, 703, 134722. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134722.

    CrossRef Google Scholar

    Ramakrishnan R, Bharath M, K R M, Natesan U, Srinivasalu S. 2021. Spatial distribution of microplastic concentration around landfill sites and its potential risk on groundwater. Chemosphere, 277, 130263. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.130263.

    CrossRef Google Scholar

    Samandra S, Johnston JM, Jaeger JE, Symons B, Xie S, Currell M, Ellis AV, Clarke BO. 2022. Microplastic contamination of an unconfined groundwater aquifer in Victoria, Australia. Science of The Total Environment, 802, 149727. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149727.

    CrossRef Google Scholar

    Selvam S, Jesuraja K, Venkatramanan S, Roy PD, Jeyanthi Kumari V. 2021. Hazardous microplastic characteristics and its role as a vector of heavy metal in groundwater and surface water of coastal south India. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 402, 123786. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123786.

    CrossRef Google Scholar

    Shruti VC, Jonathan MP, Rodriguez-Espinosa PF, Rodríguez-González F. 2019. Microplastics in freshwater sediments of Atoyac River basin, Puebla City, Mexico. Science of The Total Environment, 654, 154–163. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.054.

    CrossRef Google Scholar

    Song B, Liu CL, Zhang Y, Hou HB, Pei LX, Yang L. 2013. Urban waste disposal and its impact on groundwater pollution in China. Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 1(2), 88–95. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-050762-0.50025-5.

    CrossRef Google Scholar

    Tang QS. 2018. Development status and market analysis of domestic polypropylene industry. Modern Economic Information, 18, 360–361.

    Google Scholar

    Wang GL. 2020. Study on Microplastic Pollution Characteristics and Ecological Risk Assessment in Manas River Basin. Shihezi University, Master thesis, 1–69. doi: 10.27332/d.cnki.gshzu.2020.000624. (in Chinese with English abstract)

    Google Scholar

    Xiong W, Mei X, Mi BB, Yang H, Han ZZ, Zhang Y, Lü WC. 2022. Current status and cause analysis of microplastic pollution in sea areas in China. China Geology, 5(1), 160–170. doi: 10.31035/cg2021072.

    CrossRef Google Scholar

    Yan YC, Yang ZF, Yu T. 2022. Sources, ecological hazards, and treatment technologies of microplastics in soil. Geology in China, 49(3), 770–788 (in Chinese with English abstract). doi: 10.12029/gc20220307.

    CrossRef Google Scholar

    Zhang YS, Sun L, Yin XL, Meng H. 2017. Progress and prospect of research on environmental geology of China: A review. Geology in China, 44(5), 901–912 (in Chinese with English abstract). doi: 10.12029/gc20170505.

    CrossRef Google Scholar

  • Related articles

    [1] Rui-ping Liu, Ying Dong, Guo-cang Quan, Hua Zhu, You-ning Xu, Rafaey M Elwardany. Microplastic pollution in surface water and sediments of Qinghai-Tibet Plateau: Current status and causes. China Geology, 2021, 4(1): 178-178. doi: 10.31035/cg2021011
    [2] Wei Xiong, Xi Mei, Bei-bei Mi, Hao Yang, Zong-zhu Han, Yong Zhang, Wen-chao Lü. Current status and cause analysis of microplastic pollution in sea areas in China. China Geology, 2022, 5(1): 160-160. doi: 10.31035/cg2021072
    [3] Rui-ping Liu, Zhi-zhong Li, Fei Liu, Ying Dong, Jian-gang Jiao, Ping-ping Sun, El-Wardany RM. Microplastic pollution in Yellow River, China: Current status and research progress of biotoxicological effects. China Geology, 2021, 4(4): 585-585. doi: 10.31035/cg2021081
    [4] Yu-chen Yan, Zhong-fang Yang. Sources, distribution, behavior, and detection techniques of microplastics in soil: A review. China Geology, 2023, 6(4): 695-695. doi: 10.31035/cg2023042
    [5] Zhen-yu Lei, Li Zhang, Ming Su, Shuai-bing Luo, Xing Qian, Bo-da Zhang. Types, characteristics and implication for hydrocarbon exploration of the Middle Miocene deep-water sediments in Beikang Basin, southern South China Sea. China Geology, 2019, 2(1): 85-85. doi: 10.31035/cg2018094
    [6] Fang-ting Wang, Ke Bao, Chang-sheng Huang, Rui-ping Liu, Wen-jing Han, Cheng-yun Yi, Long Li, Yun Zhou. Distribution, characteristics, and research status of microplastics in the trunk stream and main lakes of the Yangtze River: A review. China Geology, 2022, 5(1): 171-171. doi: 10.31035/cg2022002
    [7] Jing Wang, Xin-xin Zhang, Ai-fang Chen, Bo Wang, Qi-bin Zhao, Guan-nan Liu, Xiao Xiao, Jin-nan Cao. Source analysis and risk evaluation of heavy metal in the river sediment of polymetallic mining area: Taking the Tonglüshan skarn type Cu-Fe-Au deposit as an example, Hubei section of the Yangtze River Basin, China. China Geology, 2022, 5(4): 649-649. doi: 10.31035/cg2022052
    [8] Rui-ping Liu, Fei Liu, Ying Dong, Jian-gang Jiao, El-Wardany RM, Li-feng Zhu. Microplastic contamination in lacustrine sediments in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau: Current status and transfer mechanisms. China Geology, 2022, 5(3): 421-421. doi: 10.31035/cg2022030
  • 1.  Zhang, D., Chen, Q., Xu, T. et al. Current research status on the distribution and transport of micro(nano)plastics in hyporheic zones and groundwater. Journal of Environmental Sciences (China), 2025, 151: 387-409.
    2.  Rivas-Iglesias, L., Gutiérrez, Á., Dopico, E. et al. Endangered, exploited glass eels (Anguilla anguilla) with critical levels of heavy metals and microplastics reveal both shipping and plastic spill threats. Environmental Pollution, 2025, 369: 125824.
    3.  Bhan, C., Kumar, N., Elangovan, V. Microplastics pollution in the rivers, its source, and impact on aquatic life: a review. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 2025, 22(3): 1937-1952.
    4.  Xu, J., Zuo, R., Wu, G. et al. Global distribution, drivers, and potential hazards of microplastics in groundwater: A review. Science of the Total Environment, 2024, 954: 176194.
    5.  Zhou, Y., Zeng, F., Cui, K. et al. Insight into the dynamic transformation properties of microplastic-derived dissolved organic matter and its contribution to the formation of chlorination disinfection by-products. RSC Advances, 2024, 14(46): 34338-34347.
    6.  Sotnikova, Y.S., Karpova, E.V., Song, D.I. et al. The development of an analytical procedure for the determination of microplastics in freshwater ecosystems. Analytical Methods, 2024, 16(46): 8019-8026.
    7.  Viaroli, S., Lancia, M., Lee, J.-Y. et al. Limits, challenges, and opportunities of sampling groundwater wells with plastic casings for microplastic investigations. Science of the Total Environment, 2024, 946: 174259.
    8.  Lee, J.-Y., Chia, R.W., Veerasingam, S. et al. A comprehensive review of urban microplastic pollution sources, environment and human health impacts, and regulatory efforts. Science of the Total Environment, 2024, 946: 174297.
    9.  Ye, L., Zhao, Q., Jin, J. et al. Microplastics in Sediments of the Urban River Jinjiang: Sources, Distribution, and Risk Assessment. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 2024, 235(10): 628.
    10.  Garfansa, M.P., Zalizar, L., Husen, S. et al. Fate and distribution of microplastics in water and sediment collected from Samiran ditch irrigation. Environmental Quality Management, 2024, 34(1): e22204.
    11.  Zhu, Y., Liu, Y., Xiao, Y. et al. Construction of Ecological Security Patterns Incorporating Multiple Types of Ecological Service Functions for Developed Coastal Regions: A Case Study in Jinjiang Watershed, China. Land, 2024, 13(8): 1227.
    12.  Xu, M., Ye, H., Zang, S. et al. Occurrence characteristics,sources and pollution assessment of microplastics in the sediments of Zhalong wetland | [扎龙湿地沉积物微塑料赋存特征、来源及污染评价]. Huanjing Kexue Xuebao/Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae, 2024, 44(8): 351-361.
    13.  Choudhury, T.R., Riad, S., Uddin, F.J. et al. Microplastics in multi-environmental compartments: Research advances, media, and global management scenarios. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 2024, 265: 104379.
    14.  Zakiah, Riani, E., Taryono, Cordova, M.R. Microplastic contamination in water, sediment, and fish from the Kahayan River, Indonesia. Chemistry and Ecology, 2024, 40(6): 697-720.
    15.  Zakiah, Riani, E., Taryono, Cordova, M.R. Assessment of Sediment Grain Size and Its Correlation with Microplastic Accumulation and Characteristics in the Kahayan River, Indonesia. Environmental Forensics, 2024, 25(6): 474-487.
    16.  Zhu, Y., Yang, H., Xiao, Y. et al. Identification of Hydrochemical Characteristics, Spatial Evolution, and Driving Forces of River Water in Jinjiang Watershed, China. Water (Switzerland), 2024, 16(1): 45.
    17.  Lee, J.-Y., Cha, J., Ha, K. et al. Microplastic pollution in groundwater: a systematic review. Environmental Pollutants and Bioavailability, 2024, 36(1): 2299545.
    18.  Li, Y., Shen, M., Qin, L. et al. Occurrence and Distribution Characteristics of Microplastics in Surface Water of China: a Review. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 2024, 235(1): 21.
    19.  Sadia, M.R., Hasan, M., Islam, A.R.M.T. et al. A review of microplastic threat mitigation in Asian lentic environments. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 2024, 260: 104284.
    20.  Xu, J., Zuo, R., Shang, J. et al. Nano- and micro-plastic transport in soil and groundwater environments: Sources, behaviors, theories, and models. Science of the Total Environment, 2023, 904: 166641.
    21.  Tan, Y., Dai, J., Xiao, S. et al. Occurrence of microplastic pollution in rivers globally: Driving factors of distribution and ecological risk assessment. Science of the Total Environment, 2023, 904: 165979.
    22.  Jeong, E., Kim, Y.-I., Lee, J.-Y. et al. Microplastic contamination in groundwater of rural area, eastern part of Korea. Science of the Total Environment, 2023, 895: 165006.
    23.  Yan, Y.-C., Yang, Z.-F. Sources, distribution, behavior, and detection techniques of microplastics in soil: A review. China Geology, 2023, 6(4): 695-715.
    24.  Qi, H., Liu, M., Ye, J. et al. Microplastics in the Taiwan Strait and adjacent sea: Spatial variations and lateral transport. Marine Environmental Research, 2023, 191: 106182.
    25.  Chinglenthoiba, C., Amesho, K.T.T., Reddy, D.G.C.V. et al. Microplastic as an Emerging Environmental Threat: A Critical Review on Sampling and Identification Techniques Focusing on Aquactic Ecoystem. Journal of Polymers and the Environment, 2023, 31(5): 1725-1747.
    26.  Tian, F., Ma, Q., Zhang, M. et al. Evaluation of water quality in Xin'anjiang River Basin based on principal component analysis and entropy weight method | [基于主成分分析和熵权法的新安江流域水质评价]. Geology in China, 2023, 50(2): 495-505.
    27.  Tan, E., Mohd Zanuri, N.B. Abundance and distribution of microplastics in tropical estuarine mangrove areas around Penang, Malaysia. Frontiers in Marine Science, 2023, 10: 1148804.
    28.  Cao, S., Liu, C., Li, Y. et al. Sources and ecological risk of heavy metals in the sediments of offshore area in Quanzhou Bay, Fujian Province | [福建泉州湾近岸海域沉积物重金属来源分析与生态风险评价]. Geology in China, 2022, 49(5): 1481-1496.

    Other cited types(2)

  • Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Amount of accessChart context menuAbstract Views, PDF Downloads StatisticsAbstract ViewsPDF Downloads2024-052024-062024-072024-082024-092024-102024-112024-122025-012025-022025-032025-0400.511.522.5Highcharts.com
    Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Chart context menuAccess Class DistributionDOWNLOAD: 3.0 %DOWNLOAD: 3.0 %META: 97.0 %META: 97.0 %DOWNLOADMETAHighcharts.com
    Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Chart context menuAccess Area Distribution其他: 42.9 %其他: 42.9 %其他: 2.5 %其他: 2.5 %Cedar Rapids: 0.5 %Cedar Rapids: 0.5 %[]: 2.8 %[]: 2.8 %上海: 0.5 %上海: 0.5 %东爪哇: 0.7 %东爪哇: 0.7 %兰州: 0.5 %兰州: 0.5 %北京: 1.6 %北京: 1.6 %南京: 0.7 %南京: 0.7 %南宁: 0.5 %南宁: 0.5 %厦门: 2.5 %厦门: 2.5 %台州: 0.3 %台州: 0.3 %哥伦布: 0.2 %哥伦布: 0.2 %天津: 1.5 %天津: 1.5 %孟买: 1.0 %孟买: 1.0 %安康: 0.5 %安康: 0.5 %广州: 0.8 %广州: 0.8 %意法半: 0.5 %意法半: 0.5 %成都: 0.7 %成都: 0.7 %昆明: 1.0 %昆明: 1.0 %普赖恩维尔: 0.5 %普赖恩维尔: 0.5 %格兰特县: 0.5 %格兰特县: 0.5 %浦那: 0.5 %浦那: 0.5 %海得拉巴: 0.5 %海得拉巴: 0.5 %深圳: 0.2 %深圳: 0.2 %穆拉: 0.5 %穆拉: 0.5 %纽约: 0.5 %纽约: 0.5 %芒廷维尤: 16.5 %芒廷维尤: 16.5 %芝加哥: 6.9 %芝加哥: 6.9 %莫斯科: 3.9 %莫斯科: 3.9 %衢州: 0.2 %衢州: 0.2 %西宁: 4.3 %西宁: 4.3 %西雅图: 0.5 %西雅图: 0.5 %谢利夫: 1.0 %谢利夫: 1.0 %达卡: 0.5 %达卡: 0.5 %郑州: 0.7 %郑州: 0.7 %青岛: 0.5 %青岛: 0.5 %龙岩: 0.2 %龙岩: 0.2 %其他其他Cedar Rapids[]上海东爪哇兰州北京南京南宁厦门台州哥伦布天津孟买安康广州意法半成都昆明普赖恩维尔格兰特县浦那海得拉巴深圳穆拉纽约芒廷维尤芝加哥莫斯科衢州西宁西雅图谢利夫达卡郑州青岛龙岩Highcharts.com
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Figures(3)

Tables(4)

Article Metrics

Article views(1645) PDF downloads(13) Cited by(30)

Access History

Other Articles By Authors

Catalog

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    • Table 1.  Samples of the surface water, groundwater and sediments from the Jinjiang River Basin.
      Surface waterGroundwaterSediments
      Sample No.Sampling siteTemperature of surface water /°CSample No.Depth/mGroundwater level/mWell wallGroundwater typeSample No.Organic matter content
      /(g/kg)
      SW1River29.6GW18.03.8StonesPore waterS113
      SW2River33.4GW213.49.8CementPore waterS215
      SW3River32.9GW311.07.9CementPore waterS36
      SW4River25.0GW47.02.1CementPore waterS411
      SW5River31.2GW56.05.1CementPore waterS516
      SW6River31.2GW610.00.9CementPore waterS628
      SW7Estuary31.1GW75.04.4CementPore waterS722
      SW8Estuary30.8GW83.52.3BricksPore waterS827
      SW9Bay28.7GW910.03.4BricksPore waterS938
      SW10Bay28.8GW1010.01.6BricksPore waterS1020
      SW11Bay25.6GW118.04.3StonesPore waterS112
      SW12Bay30.5GW1210.05.4BricksPore waterS1240
      SW13Bay30.0GW136.02.8StonesPore waterS1321
      SW14Bay30.6GW148.02.3CementPore waterS1422
      SW15Bay30.9GW1510.02.3CementPore waterS158
      SW16Bay27.8GW166.01.6CementPore waterS1610
       | Show Table
      DownLoad: CSV
    • Table 2.  Component proportion (%) of microplastics in surface water, groundwater, and sediment from the Jinjiang River Basin.
      TypeSample No.PEPPPVCPETPA6PSPOM
      Surface waterSW156221111000
      SW2632560600
      SW350130132500
      SW4830017000
      SW550103000100
      SW6500050000
      SW73333033000
      SW85033001700
      SW944331100110
      SW105025000250
      SW116020020000
      SW12100000000
      SW13100000000
      SW14505000000
      SW153850130000
      SW16673300000
      GroundwaterGW1005000500
      GW2001000000
      GW3075000025
      GW4075250000
      GW5000100000
      GW625252525000
      GW7000000100
      GW8750250000
      GW90000000
      GW1009050050
      GW110000000
      GW12067033000
      GW130000000
      GW1460200101000
      GW15730270000
      GW16386200000
      SedimentS1673300000
      S2067330000
      S33303300330
      S4336700000
      S50255000250
      S62550000250
      S7752500000
      S8750025000
      S9050500000
      S106020020000
      S11500000500
      S122957140000
      S13001000000
      S14505000000
      S15750250000
      S16100000000
       | Show Table
      DownLoad: CSV
    • Table 3.  Comparison of microplastic abundance in surface water, groundwater and sediment.
      TypeStudy areaMicroplastic abundance/(n/L)
      Surface waterJinjiang River, China0.5–4 (this study)
      Shuangtaizi River of Liaoning, China1.33±0.67–7.33±3.93 (Li JN et al., 2021)
      Daliao River of Liaoning, China3.00±1.15–11.00±3.51 (Li JN et al., 2021)
      Manas River, Xinjiang, China24±4–48±9 (Wang GL, 2020)
      Yangtze estuary, China0.24–1.35 (Luo W, 2019)
      Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, China0.247–2.686 (Liu RP et al., 2021a)
      Yellow River, China5.358–654 (Liu RP et al., 2021b)
      Ciwalengke River, Indonesia5.85±3.28 (Alam FC et al., 2019)
      Itchen River, Britain1.15 (Gallagher A et al., 2015)
      Hudson River, USA0.98 (Miller RZ et al., 2017)
      San Gabriel River, USA0.41 (Moore CJ et al., 2011)
      GroundwaterJinjiang River, China0.25–5.25 (this study)
      Shallow aquifer, Bacchus Marsh, Australia16–97 (Samandra S et al., 2022)
      Karst aquifer of Illinois, USA0.86–15.2 (Panno SV et al., 2019)
      Northern Germany0–7 (Mintenig SM et al., 2019)
      Coastal areas of southern India0–4.3 (Selvam S et al., 2021)
      Southeast coast of the Bay of Bengal2–80 (Ramakrishnan R et al., 2021)
      SedimentJinjiang River, China20–70 (this study)
      Liaohe river, China(20.00±34.64)–(193.33±172.43) (Han LH et al., 2020)
      Yangtze River estuary, China20–340 (Peng G et al., 2017b)
      Yellow River, China43.57-615 (Liu RP et al., 2021b)
      Urban freshwater rivers, Shanghai, China53–723 (Peng G et al., 2017a)
      Wei River, China360–1320 (Ding L et al., 2019)
      Rhine River, Germany228–3763 (Klein S et al., 2015)
      Atoac River in Puebla, Mexico(833.33±80.79)–(1633.34±202.56) (Shruti VC et al., 2019)
       | Show Table
      DownLoad: CSV
    • Table 4.  Microplastic sources of the water bodies and sediments of the Jinjiang River Basin based on the principal component analysis (PCA).
      Microplastic componentAgriculture-forestry-fisheriesDomestic wastewaterIndustrial production
      PE0.9640.0850.016
      PP0.9380.213−0.107
      PVC−0.1560.6440.312
      PET0.0080.7150.300
      PA60.1690.4640.364
      PS−0.1640.6570.191
      POM−0.116−0.0910.867
      Contribution rate/%27.18023.34015.985
      Accumulative contribution/%27.18050.52066.505
       | Show Table
      DownLoad: CSV