Search

Abstract Infrastructure is often a limiting factor in microplastics research impacting the production of scientific outputs and monitoring data. International projects are therefore required to promote collaboration and development of national and regional scientific hubs. The Commonwealth Litter Programme and the Ocean Country Partnership Programme were developed to support Global South countries to take actions on plastics entering the oceans. An international laboratory network was developed to provide the infrastructure and in country capacity to conduct the collection and processing of microplastics in environmental samples. The laboratory network was also extended to include a network developed by the University of East Anglia, UK. All the laboratories were provided with similar equipment for the collection, processing and analysis of microplastics in environmental samples. Harmonised protocols and training were also provided in country during laboratory setup to ensure comparability of quality-controlled outputs between laboratories. Such large networks are needed to produce comparable baseline and monitoring assessments.

Given that a substantial amount of time is spent in kitchens preparing food, the kitchen equipment used may be relevant in determining the composition and amount of microplastics ending up on our dinner plate. While previous research has predominantly focused on foodstuffs as a source of microplastics, we emphasise that micro- and nanoplastics are ubiquitous and likely originate from diverse sources. To address the existing knowledge gap regarding additional sources contributing to microplastics on our dinner plates, this review investigates various kitchen processes, utensils and equipment (excluding single-use items and foodstuffs) to get a better understanding of potential microplastic sources within a home kitchen. Conducting a narrative literature review using terms related to kitchenware and kitchen-affiliated equipment and processes, this study underscores that the selection of preparation tools, storage, serving, cooking, and cleaning procedures in our kitchens may have a significant impact on microplastic exposure. Mechanical, physical, and chemical processes occurring during food preparation contribute to the release of microplastic particles, challenging the assumption that exposure to microplastics in food is solely tied to food products or packaging. This review highlights diverse sources of microplastics in home kitchens, posing concerns for food safety and human health.

In this review, we investigated published data on the occurrence of microplastic in Arctic fish, and the suitability of the data and species for risk assessment and monitoring. As of 11 November 2021, we found nine studies in the peer-reviewed literature, one thesis and one report, confirming the occurrence of microplastic in fishes from multiple Arctic regions. The studies varied in methodology, detection, and quantification limitations, reported categories of size, shape, and chemical identity. All these factors influence the numbers of microplastic reported, thus limiting comparability and hindering integrative analysis. The physiological impacts of the reported microplastic contamination cannot be determined, as all studies targeted stomach/intestine contents and did not use methods with limits of detection low enough to determine particle translocation from the intestine to other organs, tissues, or body fluids within the fish. Furthermore, there is a fundamental lack of understanding the transfer and the effects of plastic additives to Arctic fishes. In addition to discussing methodological challenges and knowledge gaps, we consider ecosystem needs, commercial interests, Indigenous people’s subsistence, food safety and food sovereignty concerns, and developed a framework to harmonize and facilitate pan-Arctic microplastic monitoring.

The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme has published a plan and guidelines for the monitoring of litter and microplastics (MP) in the Arctic. Here, we look beyond suggestions for immediate monitoring and discuss challenges, opportunities, and future strategies in the long-term monitoring of litter and MP in the Arctic. Challenges are related to environmental conditions, lack of harmonization and standardization of measurements, and long-term coordinated and harmonized data storage. Furthermore, major knowledge gaps exist with regard to benchmark levels, transport, sources, and effects, which should be considered in future monitoring strategies. Their development could build on the existing infrastructure and networks established in other monitoring initiatives in the Arctic, while taking into account specific requirements for litter and MP monitoring. Knowledge existing in northern and Indigenous communities, as well as their research priorities, should be integrated into collaborative approaches. The monitoring plan for litter and MP in the Arctic allows for an ecosystem-based approach, which will improve the understanding of linkages between environmental media of the Arctic, as well as links to the global problem of litter and MP pollution.

Few studies have been published on the occurrence and distribution of microplastics (MPs) in invertebrates from the Arctic. We still need to develop harmonized methods to enable good comparison between studies taking into account recovery rates, size ranges, shapes, and polymer types. Here, we review studies on MPs in invertebrates from the Arctic and present suggestions on sampling protocols and potential indicator species. Since information on MPs in Arctic invertebrates is vastly lacking, we recommend to at least include suspension feeding bivalves like mussels in monitoring programmes to function as indicator species in the Arctic. Mussels have also been suggested as indicator species for MP monitoring in coastal regions further south. Although we recognize the challenge with particle selection and egestion in mussels as well as the relatively low concentrations of MPs in Arctic waters, uptake levels seem to represent recent exposures. More research is needed to understand these selection processes and how they affect the bioaccumulation processes. Future research should include studies on whether different functional groups of invertebrates have different exposures to MPs, e.g., if there are differences between sessile versus motile species or different feeding strategies. More knowledge on monitoring strategies for pelagic and benthic species is needed.

Litter and microplastic assessments are being carried out worldwide. Arctic ecosystems are no exception and plastic pollution is high on the Arctic Council's agenda. Water and sediment have been identified as two of the priority compartments for monitoring plastics under the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP). Recommendations for monitoring both compartments are presented in this publication. Alone, such samples can provide information on presence, fate, and potential impacts to ecosystems. Together, the quantification of microplastics in sediment and water from the same region produce a three-dimensional picture of plastics, not only a snapshot of floating or buoyant plastics in the surface water or water column but also a picture of the plastics reaching the shoreline or benthic sediments, in lakes, rivers, and the ocean. Assessment methodologies must be adapted to the ecosystems of interest to generate reliable data. In its current form, published data on plastic pollution in the Arctic is sporadic and collected using a wide spectrum of methods which limits the extent to which data can be compared. A harmonised and coordinated effort is needed to gather data on plastic pollution for the Pan-Arctic. Such information will aid in identifying priority regions and focusing mitigation efforts.

The rapid growth in microplastic pollution research is influencing funding priorities, environmental policy, and public perceptions of risks to water quality and environmental and human health. Ensuring that environmental microplastics research data are findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR) is essential to inform policy and mitigation strategies. We present a bibliographic analysis of data sharing practices in the environmental microplastics research community, highlighting the state of openness of microplastics data. A stratified (by year) random subset of 785 of 6,608 microplastics articles indexed in Web of Science indicates that, since 2006, less than a third (28.5%) contained a data sharing statement. These statements further show that most often, the data were provided in the articles’ supplementary material (38.8%) and only 13.8% via a data repository. Of the 279 microplastics datasets found in online data repositories, 20.4% presented only metadata with access to the data requiring additional approval. Although increasing, the rate of microplastic data sharing still lags behind that of publication of peer-reviewed articles on environmental microplastics. About a quarter of the repository data originated from North America (12.8%) and Europe (13.4%). Marine and estuarine environments are the most frequently sampled systems (26.2%); sediments (18.8%) and water (15.3%) are the predominant media. Of the available datasets accessible, 15.4% and 18.2% do not have adequate metadata to determine the sampling location and media type, respectively. We discuss five recommendations to strengthen data sharing practices in the environmental microplastic research community.

Given the increasing attention on the occurrence of microplastics in the environment, and the potential environmental threats they pose, there is a need for researchers to move quickly from basic understanding to applied science that supports decision makers in finding feasible mitigation measures and solutions. At the same time, they must provide sufficient, accurate and clear information to the media, public and other relevant groups (e.g., NGOs). Key requirements include systematic and coordinated research efforts to enable evidence-based decision making and to develop efficient policy measures on all scales (national, regional and global). To achieve this, collaboration between key actors is essential and should include researchers from multiple disciplines, policymakers, authorities, civil and industry organizations, and the public. This further requires clear and informative communication processes, and open and continuous dialogues between all actors. Cross-discipline dialogues between researchers should focus on scientific quality and harmonization, defining and accurately communicating the state of knowledge, and prioritization of topics that are critical for both research and policy, with the common goal to establish and update action plans for holistic benefit. In Norway, cross-sectoral collaboration has been fundamental in supporting the national strategy to address plastic pollution. Researchers, stakeholders and the environmental authorities have come together to exchange knowledge, identify knowledge gaps, and set targeted and feasible measures to tackle one of the most challenging aspects of plastic pollution: microplastic. In this article, we present a Norwegian perspective on the state of knowledge on microplastic research efforts. Norway’s involvement in international efforts to combat plastic pollution aims at serving as an example of how key actors can collaborate synergistically to share knowledge, address shortcomings, and outline ways forward to address environmental challenges.