| Citation: |
Limin Wang, Ghulam Nabi, Liyun Yin, Yanqin Wang, Shuxin Li, Zhuang Hao, Dongming Li. 2021: Birds and plastic pollution: recent advances. Avian Research, 12(1): 59. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-021-00293-2
|
Plastic waste and debris have caused substantial environmental pollution globally in the past decades, and they have been accumulated in hundreds of terrestrial and aquatic avian species. Birds are susceptible and vulnerable to external environments; therefore, they could be used to estimate the negative effects of environmental pollution. In this review, we summarize the effects of macroplastics, microplastics, and plastic-derived additives and plastic-absorbed chemicals on birds. First, macroplastics and microplastics accumulate in different tissues of various aquatic and terrestrial birds, suggesting that birds could suffer from the macroplastics and microplastics-associated contaminants in the aquatic and terrestrial environments. Second, the detrimental effects of macroplastics and microplastics, and their derived additives and absorbed chemicals on the individual survival, growth and development, reproductive output, and physiology, are summarized in different birds, as well as the known toxicological mechanisms of plastics in laboratory model mammals. Finally, we identify that human commensal birds, long-life-span birds, and model bird species could be utilized to different research objectives to evaluate plastic pollution burden and toxicological effects of chronic plastic exposure.
Along with global industrialization and modernization, the production and consumption of plastic items have increased substantially since the early 1950s (Geyer et al. 2017; MacLeod et al. 2021). Approximately, 8.3 billion metric tons of virgin plastic were produced up to 2017, and 12 billion tons of plastic wastes are expected to be found in the natural environment by 2050 (Geyer et al. 2017). Most plastic products (macroplastics, diameter > 5 mm) are not biodegradable and break down into small plastic particles that can be easily spread to various environments by the action of wind and waves owing to their small size, lightweight, high durability, and extended stability (Susanti et al. 2020). In recent years, plastic particles with diameter ≤ 5 mm (microplastics, MPs) and ≤ 1 μm (nanoplastics, NPs) have been increasingly observed in various compositions, shapes, morphologies, and textures in atmospheric, terrestrial, and marine environments, and they can enter the food chain either by inhalation or by ingestion (Susanti et al. 2020; Fig. 1). MPs have also been discovered in remote areas such as polar regions (Bessa et al. 2019), Mount Everest (Napper et al. 2020), and the Mariana Trench (Jamieson et al. 2019). MPs can act as vectors for pathogens and chemical pollutants because of their environmental persistence and potential ecotoxicity, which pose significant health and ecological concerns (Amelineau et al. 2016; Nabi et al. 2019). Furthermore, they are bioavailable for ingestion by a variety of wild organisms (Cole et al. 2013; Bessa et al. 2018; Nelms et al. 2019) and can enter food chains through trophic transfer, causing severe threats to biodiversity and ecosystems (Karami et al. 2016; Dawson et al. 2018; Zhu et al. 2018). Therefore, the accumulation of plastic waste and debris in the environment has continuously increased, resulting in substantial environmental pollution (Rochman et al. 2013; Wilcox et al. 2015; Zhu et al. 2019).
Birds have the largest number of species (more than 10, 000 living species) among the tetrapod classes (Ducatez and Lefebvre 2014). They are endotherms organisms that are widely distributed in various habitats worldwide, from the equator to polar areas, and from oceans and freshwater to high plateaus, and they exhibit flight-related morphological and physiological traits that enable them to occupy different habitats and become important members of many ecosystems (Orme et al. 2006) (Fig. 1). Compared with non-flying animals, birds have a higher metabolic rate (McNab 2009), better antioxidant capacity (Costantini 2008), prolonged lifespan (Munshi-South and Wilkinson 2010) and short but efficient digestive tract (Caviedes-Vidal et al. 2007). They are believed to be highly sensitive and vulnerable to external conditions, and therefore, could be used to monitor environmental changes and assess the negative effects of environmental pollution (Carral-Murrieta et al. 2020; Li et al. 2021; Nabi et al. 2021). Given that birds in particular mistake plastic for prey, macroplastics or MPs have been found in the gastrointestinal tracts, feces, and even in feathers and other tissues or organs of several hundred avian species from freshwater, terrestrial, and marine ecosystems (Carey 2011; Gall and Thompson 2015; Wilcox et al. 2015; Zhao et al. 2016). Here, we review the occurrence of plastics and MPs in aquatic and terrestrial birds (Fig. 1); summarize the effects of plastics, MPs, plastics-derived additives, and plastic-absorbed chemicals; and suggest directions for further research in the field of plastic pollution in birds.
Plastic debris is ubiquitous in oceans, and its potential impacts on a wide range of marine organisms have raised serious concerns (Andrady 2011; Jambeck et al. 2015; Yin et al. 2018, 2019). Globally, the proportion of MPs to the total weight of plastic accumulated in the environment by 2060 is estimated at 13.2% (Andrady 2011). Macroplastics and MPs in the oceans are similar in size and appearance to tiny marine organisms (e.g., zooplankton), and they can be wrongly regarded as prey by marine animals such as fish and shellfish (Waring et al. 2018). These marine animals are the primary food resource of many seabirds, so that the seabirds are particularly susceptible to plastic exposure because of their high rates of ingestion of contaminated prey (Barbieri et al. 2010). It is estimated that up to 78% of identified species of seabirds have deposited MPs in their digestive tracts since the 1960s (Wilcox et al. 2015; Basto et al. 2019), and more than 99% of over 300 seabird species are expected to have ingested plastic debris by 2050 (Wilcox et al. 2015). The positive correlation between MPs in feathers and fecal samples in geese and ducks (Reynolds and Ryan 2018) suggests that MPs can accumulate in different tissues of their bodies. Seabirds spread particulate plastics at colonies through regurgitation (Lindborg et al. 2012; Hammer et al. 2016) and guano deposition, thereby increasing the concentration of chemical contaminants near their colonies (Blais et al.2005). Therefore, seabirds function as vectors for marine-derived MPs and plastic-associated contaminants in the aquatic and terrestrial environments.
Terrestrial birds are an essential component of land ecosystems, with various ecological functions in the food web (Carlin et al. 2020). Zhao et al. (2016) reported that MPs were discovered in the gastrointestinal tracts of 16 out of 17 terrestrial bird species. Unlike many studies on aquatic birds, there are few studies on terrestrial birds, except for plastic ingestion by several top bird predators (Carlin et al. 2020; Ballejo et al. 2021). The occurrence of macroplastics and MPs has been reported in some raptors, because raptors are top predators, and has relatively large foraging areas, and a longer lifespan (Houston et al. 2007; Carlin et al. 2020; Ballejo et al. 2021). For instance, the California Condor (Gymnogyps californianus), a critically endangered species, has been reported to ingest plastic from rubbish dumps (Houston et al. 2007), which is considered one of the most important causes of death in nestlings (Rideout et al. 2012). In addition, another study showed that MPs were significantly more abundant in the digestive tract tissue of Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus), that consumes small mammals, snakes, and amphibians, than in fish feeding Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) (Carlin et al. 2020). Vultures are obligate scavengers, and many of them use rubbish dumps as food resources worldwide, including the Andean Condor (Vultur gryphus), Black Vulture (Coragyps atratus), and Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura) (Houston et al. 2007; Plaza et al. 2018; Carlin et al. 2020; Ballejo et al. 2021). This feeding habit increases their exposure risks to MPs consumption through organic waste and synthetic materials, which can cause intestinal obstructions, nutritional problems, infections, and metabolic alterations (Plaza et al. 2018; Tauler-Ametlller et al. 2019). Although small-sized terrestrial birds (e.g., passerines) are highly diversified and widely distributed relative to raptors (Yu et al. 2014), little is known about the relationship between the occurrence of macroplastics and MPs in small-sized terrestrial birds.
Various negative consequences are resulting from interactions between wildlife and plastic debris. The most obvious and immediate consequences include entanglement (Derraik 2002; Ryan 2018; Lavers et al. 2020), nutritional deprivation (Lavers et al. 2014), and damage or obstruction of the gut (Pierce et al. 2004). Particularly, more and more birds are severely affected by entanglement owing to the increasing presence of plastic litter (Gregory 2009; Roman et al. 2019), e.g., the large number of face masks carelessly discarded during the COVID-19 pandemic (Patrício Silva et al. 2021). Entanglement can lead to injuries, drowning, and even suffocation, which can reduce predation efficiency and increase the probability of being preyed upon (Derraik 2002; Gall and Thompson 2015). Furthermore, large plastic fragments and tiny plastic particles are also frequently ingested by birds (Derraik 2002; Ryan 2018; Lavers et al. 2020). For example, microplastic fibers, beads, and macroplastics have been found embedded in the intestinal wall of Red-shouldered Hawk and Osprey, which suggests that these materials can remain in the intestines longer than other indigestible items that pass through (Carlin et al. 2020). Several pioneering studies have reported that the deposited and aggregated MPs or larger plastic debris can cause bleeding, blockage of the digestive tract, ulcers, or perforations of the gut, which can produce a deceptive feeling of satiation (Derraik 2002; Pierce et al. 2004), lead to starvation (Derraik 2002; Pierce et al. 2004), or cause direct mortality (Derraik 2002; Roman et al. 2019). For example, the volume of plastic ingested (plastic burden) by the Northern Gannet (Morus bassanus) and the Great Shearwater (Puffinus gravis) can be associated with damage or obstruction of the gut, reduced body weight, slower growth rate, and increased mortality (Pierce et al. 2004). Similarly, a decreased growth rate induced by plastic ingestion was observed in the chicks of Flesh-footed Shearwater (Puffinus carneipes) (Lavers et al. 2014) and Japanese Quail (Coturnix japonica) (Roman et al. 2019), which likely resulted from reduced stomach capacity rather than toxicological effects (Fig. 2).
Some studies have found that ingestion of MPs has reproductive toxicity to birds (Fossi et al. 2018; Roman et al. 2019). For example, chicks of Japanese Quail with observed plastic ingestion exhibited a minor delay in sexual maturity, and a higher incidence of epididymal intra-epithelial cysts in males, although there were no effects on reproductive success (Roman et al. 2019). Similarly, the ingestion of MPs can also reduce the reproductive output of Flesh-footed Shearwater (Fossi et al. 2018). Carey (2011) observed that the plastics or microplastics ingested by adult Short-tailed Shearwater (Ardenna tenuirostris) could be passed to their chicks. Furthermore, ingestion of MPs by birds can activate inflammatory responses, and lead to reducing food intake, delayed ovulation, and increased mortality (Wright et al. 2013; Carbery et al. 2018; Fossi et al. 2018) (Fig. 2). In this context, it is important to determine the potential MPs concentration that is detrimental or sublethal to body condition, development, growth, reproduction, and other physiological functions in birds (Puskic et al. 2019).
Plastic debris contains a wide range of additives and toxic chemicals sorbed from the environment (Hirai et al.2011), which can have various adverse effects on wildlife organisms (Chen et al. 2019; Tanaka et al. 2020). The European Chemicals Agency has listed approximately 400 plastic additives, including organotins, triclosan, phthalates, brominated flame retardants, bisphenols, and diethyl hexyl phthalate (DEHP) (Du et al. 2017; Hermabessiere et al. 2017; Zhang et al. 2018). The accumulation of plastic additives has been reported in several seabirds, including the Streaked Shearwater (Calonectris leucomelas) (Teuten et al. 2009), Short-tailed Shearwaters (Yamashita et al. 2011), and Flesh-footed Shearwaters (Lavers et al. 2014), suggesting that plastics are a direct carrier of chemicals to seabirds. Among these chemicals, many studies confirm that DEHP can cause weight gain in European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) (O'Shea and Stafford, 1980) and is potentially toxic to the kidneys (Li et al. 2018), liver (Zhang et al. 2018), and cerebellum (Du et al. 2017) in Japanese Quail.
In addition, owing to their hydrophobic nature and relatively large surface area, MPs can adsorb numerous environmental contaminants, such as POPs, heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), antibiotics, and endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs) (Rathi et al. 2019; Reddy et al. 2019). Previous studies have shown that ingestion of toxic substances adsorbed on MPs can induce malnutrition, endocrine disruption, and issues in the reproductive biology of Japanese Quail (Roman et al. 2019) and several species of seabirds, including Kelp Gull (Larus dominicanus) (Barbieri 2010), Short-tailed Shearwater (Tanaka et al. 2013), White-chinned Petrel (Procellaria aequinoctialis), Slender-billed Prion (Pachyptila belcheri), Great Shearwater, Black-browed Albatross (Thalassarche melanophrys), and Southern Giant Petrel (Macronectes giganteus) (Susanti et al. 2020). Chronic exposure to EDCs can have several negative effects on the developmental and reproductive biology of Japanese Quail (Ottinger et al. 2008), Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) (McCarty and Second 2000), American Kestrel (Falco sparverius) (Fisher et al. 2001), Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) (Sanderson et al. 1994) and White Ibis (Eudocimus albus) (Jayasena et al. 2011), and it also can impair immune and thyroid functions in Japanese Quails (Ottinger et al. 2008). Furthermore, EDCs cause poor reproductive output because of embryonic death, chick deformities, eggshell thinning, and even death in Japanese Quails (Ottinger et al. 2005). Previous studies have shown that traditional pollutants, such as heavy metals and organic pollutants (POPs) are detrimental to the health of birds. For example, heavy metals have adverse effects on the testicular function and sperm quality of Eurasian Tree Sparrows (Passer montanus) (Yang et al. 2020) and White Ibises (Frederick and Jayasena2011), and POPs exert numerous negative effects on endocrine, immune and neural system in White-tailed Eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) (Sletten et al. 2016) and reproduction, and development, and growth in other bird species (Hao et al. 2021). However, it is quite challenging to find pertinent data for each toxicant because of the large number of plastic-associated toxicants identified in wild avian species.
Plastic debris and MPs have also been found in the digestive tracts of a variety of animal groups from various environments. First, plastics can cause entanglement or lead to starvation or intestinal blockages upon ingestion (Gregory 2009; Provencher et al. 2017). Second, MPs can be deposited in the mucus layer secreted by the cells of the gut wall, and then transported to other organs or tissues via circulation (Lu et al. 2018; Jin et al. 2019). In addition to the physical impairment and histological variations in the intestines, the perils of MP ingestion include growth impediment and disorders of metabolism and behavior (Lu et al. 2018; Jin et al. 2019). MPs also impair filter feeders (mussels and clams) and induce DNA damage, oxidative injury, and antioxidative responses (clams) (Cedervall et al. 2012; Ribeira et al. 2017). Furthermore, endocrine disruption and neurotransmission dysfunction of marine species caused by MPs have been reported, in addition to genotoxicity (Rochman et al. 2014; Avio et al. 2015). Polystyrene MPs can adversely affect granulocytes and ovarian function in female rats through distinct signaling pathways (Hou et al. 2021).
Compared with plastic debris and MPs, NPs have a higher potential to negatively affect organisms because they can penetrate and accumulate in organs or tissues through systemic circulation (Kashiwada 2006; von Moos et al. 2012) and even pass biological barriers (Mattsson et al. 2016; Borisova 2018). NPs can interact with proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates, which affect transmembrane transport (Revel et al. 2018) and metabolism (Cedervall et al. 2012; Mattsson et al. 2015), and can lead to reproductive dysfunction and behavioral abnormalities in aquatic (Chae and An 2017; Mattsson et al. 2017; Prüst et al. 2020) and terrestrial (Amereh et al. 2020; Prüst et al. 2020) animals. Furthermore, NPs have induced adverse effects on the reproductive functions of laboratory mammals (Amereh et al. 2020; An et al. 2021; Jin et al. 2021), such as alterations in sperm morphology and viability, and lower serum testosterone, luteinizing hormone (LH), and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) in mice and rats (Amereh et al. 2020). Polystyrene NPs can cause depression and behavioral and cognitive disorders in mice (da Costa Araújo and Malafaia 2021; Estrela et al. 2021). Despite the limited information on the toxicological effects of NPs on non-laboratory model animals, the above-mentioned effects of widely distributed NPs can be inferred to occur in free-living animals.
The increasing demand for plastic products coupled with inadequate waste management and policy contributes to the ongoing and rapidly expanding environmental pollution of plastics (Rochman et al. 2013; Borrelle et al. 2017). MPs are hazardous not only to birds but also to other animals, including humans. In recent years, an increasing number of studies have identified the occurrence of plastics and plastics-associated toxicants in various animals associated with a significant increase in plastic pollution. Although an increasing number of studies have focused on the phenomenon of plastic deposition and toxicological effects in birds, the mechanisms throughout which MPs enter tissues and their potential health risks have not been fully clarified. Although MPs do not exhibit apparent toxicity, they can absorb toxic chemicals, which further challenges our understanding of the overall impacts of MPs. Further investigations are needed to determine whether the endocrine and toxicological effects of MPs-related contamination (e.g., plastics-derived additives and plastics-adsorbed chemicals) occur in wild birds with sufficient severity to be detrimental to fitness, and whether birds suffer ongoing disadvantages upon chronic low-level toxicity.
As birds have a great number of specific groups, different groups can be used to assess the plastic pollution burden, long-term effects of MPs exposure in various environments, and toxicological effects in the laboratory. For instance, human commensal species, such as the Eurasian Tree Sparrow (Sun et al. 2016; Li et al. 2019; Yang et al. 2019; Ding et al. 2021), House Sparrow (P. domesticus) (Hanson et al. 2020) and House Wren (Troglodytes aedon) (Juárez et al. 2020) utilize human resources in rural and urban areas and have a remarkably broad distribution range. These species could be used as bioindicators to evaluate the plastic pollution burden in different environments because they have been well studied in the past two decades. In addition, as long-lifespan species (e.g., albatrosses, shearwaters, and vultures) can breed over many decades (Moore 2008), they could be used to evaluate the potential toxicological effects of chronic plastic exposure on both individual survival and reproductive output (Kramar et al. 2019; Marín-Gómez et al. 2020; Sánchez et al. 2020). Furthermore, these species could be used to evaluate the effects of food contaminated with plastic debris and the intergenerational transfer of MPs through allofeeding of offsprings (Sánchez et al. 2020), as observed in the Cory's Shearwater (Calonectris diomedea) fledglings (Rodríguez et al. 2012), Providence Petrel (Pterodroma solandri) (Bester et al. 2010), Black-footed Albatross (Phoebastria nigripes) (Rapp et al. 2017), Laysan Albatross (P. immutabilis) (Young et al. 2009), Short-tailed Shearwater (Carey 2011), Wedge-tailed Shearwater (A. pacifica) (Verlis et al. 2013), Flesh-footed Shearwater (Lavers et al. 2014), and other petrels (Rapp et al. 2017). Finally, model bird species (chicken and Japanese Quail) could be used to clarify the potential regulatory mechanisms associated with physiology, behavior, and neuroendocrinology upon exposure to different sizes of MPs.
NPs can cause more potent threats than MPs to mammals because they are small enough to accumulate in different tissues through systemic circulation (Estrela et al. 2021). In birds, one can predict that NPs might cause behavioral, physiological, and neuroendocrinological changes, although there has been no identified evidence, and further investigations are necessary. Furthermore, as birds build nests with many natural and human-related materials, the potential threat of plastic debris, MPs, or NPs as nest materials to embryonic and chick development needs to be further examined. Birds are unique and differ from other animal groups because of their behavior, physiology, and lifestyle. Further research should focus on the underlying toxicological mechanisms of MPs and NPs in the laboratory or free-living birds and the identification of consistent and inconsistent response mechanisms to plastics-related pollution (i.e., macroplastics, MPs, NPs, plastics-derived additives, and plastics-adsorbed chemicals) in birds and other animal groups.
LW and GN: methodology, validation, investigation, writing original draft; LY, YW, SL, and ZH: help of writing original draft; DL: conceptualization, supervision, writing the draft, and funding acquisition. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
| Jian Ding, Shengnan Wang, Wenzhi Yang, Huijie Zhang, Ni Wang, Yingmei Zhang. 2025: How does asymmetric sibling rivalry respond under environmental metal pollution? A case study of the Tree Sparrow (Passer montanus). Avian Research, 16(1): 100225. DOI: 10.1016/j.avrs.2025.100225 | |
| Juan A. Amat, Nico Varo, Marta I. Sánchez, Andy J. Green, Dámaso Hornero-Méndez, Juan Garrido-Fernández, Cristina Ramo. 2023: Physiological strategies of moult-migrating Black-necked Grebes (Podiceps nigricollis) in a polluted staging site according to blood chemistry. Avian Research, 14(1): 100118. DOI: 10.1016/j.avrs.2023.100118 | |
| Luchang Zhang, Xingjian Ma, Zhiyu Chen, Chunying Wang, Zicheng Liu, Xiang Li, Xiaoying Xing. 2023: Negative effects of artificial nest boxes on birds: A review. Avian Research, 14(1): 100101. DOI: 10.1016/j.avrs.2023.100101 | |
| Long Ma, Yuancheng Liu, Wenjing Lu, Zheng Zhang, Wanyou Li, Ziwei Zhang, Xueli Zhang, Chaoying Zhu, Junpeng Bai, Zhifeng Xu, Yuqing Han, Luzhang Ruan. 2023: A highly effective incubation strategy enhanced the urban bird hatch success. Avian Research, 14(1): 100074. DOI: 10.1016/j.avrs.2022.100074 | |
| Jared D. Wolfe, Philip C. Stouffer, Richard O. Bierregaard Jr., David A. Luther, Thomas E. Lovejoy. 2020: Effects of a regenerating matrix on the survival of birds in tropical forest fragments. Avian Research, 11(1): 8. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-020-00193-x | |
| Roselvy Juárez, Eduardo Chacón-Madrigal, Luis Sandoval. 2020: Urbanization has opposite effects on the territory size of two passerine birds. Avian Research, 11(1): 11. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-020-00198-6 | |
| Lucas M. Leveau, Adriana Ruggiero, Thomas J. Matthews, M. Isabel Bellocq. 2019: A global consistent positive effect of urban green area size on bird richness. Avian Research, 10(1): 30. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-019-0168-3 | |
| Anders Pape Møller, Johannes Erritzøe. 2015: Brain size and urbanization in birds. Avian Research, 6(1): 8. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-015-0017-y | |
| Xiaolian SHU, Zhou LU, Gang YANG, Yuanjun MENG, Zhaotian LI, Fang ZHOU. 2013: Survey of the use by birds of various karst wetlands in southwestern Guangxi, southern China. Avian Research, 4(4): 291-305. DOI: 10.5122/cbirds.2013.0029 | |
| Zhaotian LI, Zhou LU, Xiaolian SHU, Guangwei JIANG, Liang XU, Fang ZHOU. 2013: Nestedness of bird assemblages in the karst forest fragments of southwestern Guangxi, China. Avian Research, 4(2): 170-183. DOI: 10.5122/cbirds.2013.0012 |
| 1. | Alok Prasad Das, Kasturi Dutta, Rousan Khatun, et al. Microfiber pollution and its microbial mitigation: A review on current trends and future prospects. Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers, 2025, 166: 105104. DOI:10.1016/j.jtice.2023.105104 |
| 2. | Akankshya Das, Sudeshna Dey, Alok Prasad Das. Ecotoxicological impacts of synthetic microfiber pollutants and development of sustainable mitigation strategies. Environmental Chemistry and Ecotoxicology, 2025, 7: 201. DOI:10.1016/j.enceco.2024.12.003 |
| 3. | Wieland Heim, Clara Holtmannspötter, Ramona Julia Heim, et al. High microplastic pollution in birds of urban waterbodies revealed by non-invasively collected faecal samples. Science of The Total Environment, 2025, 975: 179306. DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.179306 |
| 4. | Pawan Kumar, Anil Kumar, Deepak Kumar, et al. Microplastics influencing aquatic environment and human health: A review of source, determination, distribution, removal, degradation, management strategy and future perspective. Journal of Environmental Management, 2025, 375: 124249. DOI:10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.124249 |
| 5. | Jyotsana Mehta, Neeraj Dilbaghi, Akash Deep, et al. Plastic waste upcycling into carbon nanomaterials in circular economy: Synthesis, applications, and environmental aspects. Carbon, 2025, 234: 119969. DOI:10.1016/j.carbon.2024.119969 |
| 6. | P. Magaña-Olivé, E. Martinez-Tavera, S.B. Sujitha, et al. Evaluation of microplastics and metal accumulation in domestic ducks (Anas platyrhynchos f. domesticus) of a contaminated reservoir in Central Mexico. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2025, 213: 117639. DOI:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2025.117639 |
| 7. | Bartłomiej Naskrent, Witold Grzywiński, Krzysztof Polowy, et al. Influence of cutting attachment on work efficiency, fuel consumption and environmental pollution from plastic wire during tending of young forests with brush cutters. Forestry: An International Journal of Forest Research, 2025. DOI:10.1093/forestry/cpaf005 |
| 8. | Thomas A. Schlacher, Michael A. Weston, Brooke Maslo, et al. Vehicles kill birds on sandy beaches: The global evidence. Science of The Total Environment, 2025, 975: 179258. DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.179258 |
| 9. | Victoria Amellalli Vazquez-Cruz, Alethia Vázquez-Morillas, Arely Areanely Cruz-Salas, et al. Microplastics in Urban Bird Feces: A Methodological Approach and Case Study in Mexico City. Microplastics, 2025, 4(1): 6. DOI:10.3390/microplastics4010006 |
| 10. | Arpita Biswas, Pradip Debnath, Arjan Basu Roy, et al. Investigating avian fauna diversity and exploring their possible threats in and around wet-landscape of Rudrasagar lake: an Indian Ramsar site. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 2025, 33(2) DOI:10.1007/s11273-025-10037-4 |
| 11. | Shrayan Bhattacharjee, Pradipta Kumar Ghosh, Shambadeb Basu, et al. Microplastic contamination in threatened wild felids of India: Understanding environmental uptake, feeding implications, and associated risks. Environmental Research, 2025, 273: 121218. DOI:10.1016/j.envres.2025.121218 |
| 12. | Prajna Ritambhara Swain, Pranaya Kumar Parida, Priti Jyoti Majhi, et al. Microplastics as Emerging Contaminants: Challenges in Inland Aquatic Food Web. Water, 2025, 17(2): 201. DOI:10.3390/w17020201 |
| 13. | Hatice Hale Tatlı, Arif Parmaksız, Adil Uztemur, et al. Microplastic accumulation in various bird species in Turkey. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 2025, 44(2): 386. DOI:10.1093/etojnl/vgae061 |
| 14. | Abdessalem Hammouda, Farès Ben Youssef, Karen D. McCoy, et al. Use of anthropogenic debris as nesting materials in a south-Mediterranean yellow-legged gull (Larus michahellis) breeding colony in relation to their environmental availability. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2025, 197(4) DOI:10.1007/s10661-025-13824-x |
| 15. | Xiangbin You, Zhuo Zhang, Guijuan Tian, et al. The impact of polyethylene microplastics exposure on the, growth performance, reproductive performance, antioxidant capacity, and intestinal microbiota of quails. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 2025, 296: 118218. DOI:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2025.118218 |
| 16. | Carlos Alberto Dutra Fraga Filho. Analysis of Brazilian plastic waste management in the global context and case study of the City of Vitória, Espírito Santo. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2025, 32(10): 5645. DOI:10.1007/s11356-024-35865-4 |
| 17. | Chloe Wayman, Francisca Fernández-Piñas, Rocío Fernández-Valeriano, et al. The potential use of birds as bioindicators of suspended atmospheric microplastics and artificial fibers. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 2024, 282: 116744. DOI:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2024.116744 |
| 18. | Limin Wang, Shuxin Li, Yaotong Hao, et al. Exposure to polystyrene microplastics reduces sociality and brain oxytocin levels through the gut-brain axis in mice. Science of The Total Environment, 2024, 945: 174026. DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.174026 |
| 19. | Amit Kumar, Sarita Rana, Vanita. Population Structure and Dynamics of Greater Flamingos (Phoenicopterus roseus) in Selected Sites of Haryana, India. Biology Bulletin, 2024, 51(6): 1777. DOI:10.1134/S1062359024606918 |
| 20. | Kerry Schutten, André Morrill, Akshaya Chandrashekar, et al. Plastic ingestion, accumulated heavy metals, and health metrics of four Larus gull species feeding at a coastal landfill in eastern Canada. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2024, 476: 135107. DOI:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.135107 |
| 21. | Marcin Zając, Joanna Kotyńska, Monika Naumowicz. Presence of MNPs in Water Environment-pathways of Degradation and Impact on Organisms. Civil and Environmental Engineering Reports, 2024, 33(4): 106. DOI:10.59440/ceer/183460 |
| 22. | Ivan Sazima. A pufferfish that scavenges on aquatic and terrestrial invertebrate and vertebrate carcasses. Ichthyological Research, 2024. DOI:10.1007/s10228-024-00982-0 |
| 23. | Chloe Wayman, Francisca Fernández-Piñas, Irene López-Márquez, et al. Unraveling Plastic Pollution in Protected Terrestrial Raptors Using Regurgitated Pellets. Microplastics, 2024, 3(4): 671. DOI:10.3390/microplastics3040041 |
| 24. | Simona Tarricone, Maria Antonietta Colonna, Pierangelo Freschi, et al. The Presence of Microplastics in the Gastrointestinal Tracts of Song Thrushes (Turdus philomelos) Wintering in Apulia (Southern Italy)—Preliminary Results. Animals, 2024, 14(14): 2050. DOI:10.3390/ani14142050 |
| 25. | Golam Kibria. Contamination of coastal and marine bird species with plastics: Global analysis and synthesis. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2024, 206: 116687. DOI:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2024.116687 |
| 26. | Nicolás A. Garello, Martín C.M. Blettler, Sedat Gündoğdu, et al. Trashy treasures? The increasing terrestrial invertebrate diversity in small-scale dumps. Environmental Pollution, 2024, 361: 124818. DOI:10.1016/j.envpol.2024.124818 |
| 27. | Jacquelyn Grace, Elena Duran, Mary Ann Ottinger, et al. Sublethal effects of early-life exposure to common and emerging contaminants in birds. Current Research in Toxicology, 2024, 7: 100190. DOI:10.1016/j.crtox.2024.100190 |
| 28. | Zhixin Wu, Jiao Dong, Yuxuan Wu, et al. Mass-based fates of microplastics throughout wastewater treatment processes. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2024, 487: 150497. DOI:10.1016/j.cej.2024.150497 |
| 29. | V. Balaji, R. Venkitachalam. Winter population of raptor species in the Vellalore dump yard of Coimbatore City, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa, 2024, 16(11): 26167. DOI:10.11609/jott.9118.16.11.26167-26171 |
| 30. | Pengfei Xie, Pengcheng Li, Xiaoshan Zhu, et al. Hepatotoxic of polystyrene microplastics in aged mice: Focus on the role of gastrointestinal transformation and AMPK/FoxO pathway. Science of The Total Environment, 2024, 917: 170471. DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.170471 |
| 31. | Lingyang Jing, Yuxin Zhang, Qingyu Zhang, et al. Polystyrene microplastics disrupted physical barriers, microbiota composition and immune responses in the cecum of developmental Japanese quails. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 2024, 144: 225. DOI:10.1016/j.jes.2023.08.020 |
| 32. | Atiyeh Najafighodousi, Fariba Nemati, Arash Rayegani, et al. Recycling facemasks into civil construction material to manage waste generated during COVID-19. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2024, 31(8): 12577. DOI:10.1007/s11356-023-31726-8 |
| 33. | Qingyu Zhang, Yuxin Zhang, Lingyang Jing, et al. Microplastics induced inflammation in the spleen of developmental Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica) via ROS-mediated p38 MAPK and TNF signaling pathway activation1. Environmental Pollution, 2024, 341: 122891. DOI:10.1016/j.envpol.2023.122891 |
| 34. | Ruibo Ding, Qiaoling Li, Kang Wang, et al. Occurrence and distribution of microplastics in the adjacent environment of Yellow River Delta, China. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2024, 199: 116019. DOI:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.116019 |
| 35. | Carola Murano, Rosario Balestrieri, Adriano Minichino, et al. Macro-and micro-plastics detected in razorbill Alca torda in the western Mediterranean Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2024, 206: 116814. DOI:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2024.116814 |
| 36. | Sonja M. Ehlers, Julius A. Ellrich. Does foil-like debris impair barnacles by covering them?. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2024, 207: 116895. DOI:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2024.116895 |
| 37. | Gea Oliveri Conti, Paola Rapisarda, Margherita Ferrante. Relationship between climate change and environmental microplastics: a one health vision for the platysphere health. One Health Advances, 2024, 2(1) DOI:10.1186/s44280-024-00049-9 |
| 38. | Krishna Gautam, Namrata Pandey, Dhvani Yadav, et al. Ecotoxicological impacts of landfill sites: Towards risk assessment, mitigation policies and the role of artificial intelligence. Science of The Total Environment, 2024, 927: 171804. DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.171804 |
| 39. | Chloe Wayman, Miguel González-Pleiter, Francisca Fernández-Piñas, et al. Accumulation of microplastics in predatory birds near a densely populated urban area. Science of The Total Environment, 2024, 917: 170604. DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.170604 |
| 40. | Mussarat Jabeen, Kainat Tarıq, Syed Ubaid Hussain. Bioplastic an alternative to plastic in modern world: A systemized review. Environmental Research and Technology, 2024, 7(4): 614. DOI:10.35208/ert.1467590 |
| 41. | Alexey R. Rednikin, Yulia A. Frank, Artem O. Rozhin, et al. Airborne Microplastics: Challenges, Prospects, and Experimental Approaches. Atmosphere, 2024, 15(11): 1380. DOI:10.3390/atmos15111380 |
| 42. | Karina Bodziach, Marta Staniszewska, Iga Nehring, et al. Endocrine disrupting bisphenol A, 4-tert-octylphenol and 4-nonylphenol in gonads of long-tailed ducks Clangula hyemalis wintering in the southern Baltic. Environmental Research, 2024, 243: 117772. DOI:10.1016/j.envres.2023.117772 |
| 43. | Kerry Schutten, André Morrill, Akshaya Chandrashekar, et al. Comparing three common nest survey methods, using double-crested cormorants as a proposed sentinel for monitoring plastic pollution in freshwater environments. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 2024, 50(6): 102448. DOI:10.1016/j.jglr.2024.102448 |
| 44. | Edem Mahu, Tyronne Jude Vanderpuye-Orgle, Charles Mario Boateng, et al. Quantification and characterization of microplastics ingested by mangrove oysters across West Africa. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2024, 31(38): 50283. DOI:10.1007/s11356-024-34470-9 |
| 45. | Kevin B. Briggs, Mark C. Mainwaring. Anthropogenic material in pied flycatcher (Ficedula hypoleuca) nests varies with local habitat features and between nest sections. Environmental Advances, 2024, 15: 100486. DOI:10.1016/j.envadv.2024.100486 |
| 46. | Mitra Nikpay, Sayna Toorchi Roodsari. Crafting a Scientific Framework to Mitigate Microplastic Impact on Ecosystems. Microplastics, 2024, 3(1): 165. DOI:10.3390/microplastics3010010 |
| 47. | Silvia De Michelis, Loris Pietrelli, Corrado Battisti, et al. First evidence of plastics in coypu (Myocastor coypus)’s platforms. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2024, 31(32): 45452. DOI:10.1007/s11356-024-34084-1 |
| 48. | Vethanayaham Jebashalomi, Partheeban Emmanuel Charles, Rajendran Rajaram. Microbial degradation of low-density polyethylene (LDPE) and polystyrene using Bacillus cereus (OR268710) isolated from plastic-polluted tropical coastal environment. Science of The Total Environment, 2024, 924: 171580. DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.171580 |
| 49. | Wenshan Shi, Nan Wu, Zengli Zhang, et al. A global review on the abundance and threats of microplastics in soils to terrestrial ecosystem and human health. Science of The Total Environment, 2024, 912: 169469. DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.169469 |
| 50. | María José Espinoza, Iván Laviada, Aina Taberner Cerezo, et al. Do birds select the plastics debris used for nest construction? A case study in a Mediterranean agricultural landscape. Environmental Research, 2024, 255: 119117. DOI:10.1016/j.envres.2024.119117 |
| 51. | Alessandra Costanzo, Roberto Ambrosini, Milo Manica, et al. Microfibers in the Diet of a Highly Aerial Bird, the Common Swift Apus apus. Toxics, 2024, 12(6): 408. DOI:10.3390/toxics12060408 |
| 52. | Kerry Schutten, Akshaya Chandrashekar, Laura Dougherty, et al. How do life history and behaviour influence plastic ingestion risk in Canadian freshwater and terrestrial birds?. Environmental Pollution, 2024, 347: 123777. DOI:10.1016/j.envpol.2024.123777 |
| 53. | Bence Prikler, Gábor Bordós, Balázs Kriszt, et al. Detection of microplastics in zebrafish housing systems: Can microplastic background contamination affect the final results of microplastic-related toxicological tests?. Aquatic Toxicology, 2024, 273: 107020. DOI:10.1016/j.aquatox.2024.107020 |
| 54. | Julian Stocker, Micaele Wolfarth, Johnny Ferraz Dias, et al. Presence of micronuclei and nuclear abnormalities in Caracara (Polyborus) plancus living in an airport area in southern Brazil. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, 2024, 87(17): 675. DOI:10.1080/15287394.2024.2361247 |
| 55. | Patricio A. Vega-Mariño, Isabel A. Jimenez, Tamia Villacres, et al. Review of One Health in the Galápagos Islands (Part 2): climate change, anthropogenic activities, and socioeconomic sustainability. Frontiers in Conservation Science, 2024, 5 DOI:10.3389/fcosc.2024.1351716 |
| 56. | Markéta Nummi, Petri Nummi, Sari Holopainen, et al. Which Natural Wetland Characteristics Could be Used in Creating Temporary Wetlands?. Wetlands, 2024, 44(7) DOI:10.1007/s13157-024-01857-w |
| 57. | Paolo Tremolada, Francesco Saliu, Anna Winkler, et al. Indigo-dyed cellulose fibers and synthetic polymers in surface-feeding seabird chick regurgitates from the Gulf of Alaska. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2024, 203: 116401. DOI:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2024.116401 |
| 58. | Weiwenhui Liang, Bowen Li, Mui-Choo Jong, et al. Process-oriented impacts of microplastic fibers on behavior and histology of fish. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2023, 448: 130856. DOI:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.130856 |
| 59. | Fernanda C. L. Valls, Paloma L. Costa, Danielle R. Awabdi, et al. An overview of seabirds in the Santos Basin, Brazil: species, threats, and current trends in studies. Ocean and Coastal Research, 2023, 71(suppl 3) DOI:10.1590/2675-2824071.22068fclv |
| 60. | Xiaobo Zheng, Xiaodan Wu, Qian Zheng, et al. Transfer of Microplastics in Terrestrial and Aquatic Food Webs: The Impact of E-Waste Debris and Ecological Traits. Environmental Science & Technology, 2023, 57(3): 1300. DOI:10.1021/acs.est.2c06473 |
| 61. | Junbo Li, Kai Yin, Lulu Hou, et al. Polystyrene microplastics mediate inflammatory responses in the chicken thymus by Nrf2/NF-κB pathway and trigger autophagy and apoptosis. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, 2023, 100: 104136. DOI:10.1016/j.etap.2023.104136 |
| 62. | Yurika Tokunaga, Hiroshi Okochi, Yuto Tani, et al. Airborne microplastics detected in the lungs of wild birds in Japan. Chemosphere, 2023, 321: 138032. DOI:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.138032 |
| 63. | Zuzanna Jagiello, S. James Reynolds, Jenő Nagy, et al. Why do some bird species incorporate more anthropogenic materials into their nests than others?. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2023, 378(1884) DOI:10.1098/rstb.2022.0156 |
| 64. | Limin Wang, Shengxuan Li, Ibrahim M. Ahmad, et al. Global face mask pollution: threats to the environment and wildlife, and potential solutions. Science of The Total Environment, 2023, 887: 164055. DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.164055 |
| 65. | Kevin B. Briggs, D. Charles Deeming, Mark C. Mainwaring. Plastic is a widely used and selectively chosen nesting material for pied flycatchers (Ficedula hypoleuca) in rural woodland habitats. Science of The Total Environment, 2023, 854: 158660. DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158660 |
| 66. | Alexis Leviner, John D. Perrine. Documentation of microplastics in the gastrointestinal tracts of terrestrial raptors in central California, USA. California Fish and Wildlife Journal, 2023, 9(2) DOI:10.51492/cfwj.109.6 |
| 67. | Aziz-Ur-Rahim Bacha, Iqra Nabi, Muhammad Zaheer, et al. Biodegradation of macro- and micro-plastics in environment: A review on mechanism, toxicity, and future perspectives. Science of The Total Environment, 2023, 858: 160108. DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160108 |
| 68. | Van-Giang Le, Minh-Ky Nguyen, Hoang-Lam Nguyen, et al. A comprehensive review of micro- and nano-plastics in the atmosphere: Occurrence, fate, toxicity, and strategies for risk reduction. Science of The Total Environment, 2023, 904: 166649. DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.166649 |
| 69. | Chunxing Cheng, Yangyang Wu, Quanqing Ye, et al. Individual and combined effects of microplastics and cadmium on intestinal histology and microflora of Procypris merus. Aquaculture Reports, 2023, 31: 101659. DOI:10.1016/j.aqrep.2023.101659 |
| 70. | Weldemariam Tesfahunegny, Alembrhan Assefa. Diversity and abundance of birds in dumpsites of Afar region, Ethiopia: implication for conservation. BMC Zoology, 2023, 8(1) DOI:10.1186/s40850-023-00177-6 |
| 71. | Krishnamayee Mallick, Aishwarya Sahu, Navneet Kumar Dubey, et al. Harvesting marine plastic pollutants-derived renewable energy: A comprehensive review on applied energy and sustainable approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 2023, 348: 119371. DOI:10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119371 |
| 72. | M. Fernández-Míguez, V. Puvanendran, E. Burgerhout, et al. Effects of weathered polyethylene microplastic ingestion on sexual maturation, fecundity and egg quality in maturing broodstock Atlantic cod Gadus morhua. Environmental Pollution, 2023, 320: 121053. DOI:10.1016/j.envpol.2023.121053 |
| 73. | Carlos Alberto Dutra Fraga Filho. Analysis of Brazilian Plastic Waste Management in the Global Context and Case Study of the City of Vitória, Espírito Santo. SSRN Electronic Journal, 2023. DOI:10.2139/ssrn.4639105 |
| 74. | Muhammad Bilal, Atif Yaqub, Habib Ul Hassan, et al. Microplastic Quantification in Aquatic Birds: Biomonitoring the Environmental Health of the Panjkora River Freshwater Ecosystem in Pakistan. Toxics, 2023, 11(12): 972. DOI:10.3390/toxics11120972 |
| 75. | A. Hollerova, N. Hodkovicova, J. Blahova, et al. Polystyrene microparticles can affect the health status of freshwater fish – Threat of oral microplastics intake. Science of The Total Environment, 2023, 858: 159976. DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159976 |
| 76. | Margarita Mulero-Pázmány. Wildlife Tourism Malpractice Can Lead to Animal Poisoning with Plastics. Journal of Raptor Research, 2023, 57(4) DOI:10.3356/JRR-22-00111 |
| 77. | Kristina Bule Možar, Martina Miloloža, Viktorija Martinjak, et al. Bacteria and Yeasts Isolated from the Environment in Biodegradation of PS and PVC Microplastics: Screening and Treatment Optimization. Environments, 2023, 10(12): 207. DOI:10.3390/environments10120207 |
| 78. | Xiaoling Wan, Jia Li, Mengxue Ao, et al. The intestinal microbiota of a Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus): possible relationships with starvation raised by macro-plastic ingestion. International Microbiology, 2023, 26(4): 1001. DOI:10.1007/s10123-023-00355-z |
| 79. | Kerry Schutten, Akshaya Chandrashekar, Madelaine Bourdages, et al. Assessing plastic ingestion in birds of prey from British Columbia, Canada. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2023, 30(31): 76631. DOI:10.1007/s11356-023-27830-4 |
| 80. | Royall McMahon Ward, Emily M. Casper, J. Alan Clark, et al. Microplastic transfer from the American horseshoe crab to shorebirds through consumption of horseshoe crab eggs in Jamaica Bay, NY. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2022, 184: 114148. DOI:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.114148 |
| 81. | Jian Meng, Qun Zhang, Min Ma, et al. Persistence of avian influenza virus (H9N2) on plastic surface. Science of The Total Environment, 2022, 834: 155355. DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155355 |
| 82. | Krzysztof Deoniziak, Aleksandra Cichowska, Sławomir Niedźwiecki, et al. Thrushes (Aves: Passeriformes) as indicators of microplastic pollution in terrestrial environments. Science of The Total Environment, 2022, 853: 158621. DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158621 |
| 83. | A. A. Yaroslavov, M. S. Arzhakov, A. R. Khokhlov. Disposable Polymer Packaging: A Problem without a Solution?. Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2022, 92(5): 600. DOI:10.1134/S1019331622050136 |
| 84. | Avalon Diggle, Tony R. Walker. Environmental and Economic Impacts of Mismanaged Plastics and Measures for Mitigation. Environments, 2022, 9(2): 15. DOI:10.3390/environments9020015 |
| 85. | Naiara Klopertanz, Martín Amestoy, Sergio Abate, et al. Monitoring macroplastic ingestion by birds and marine mammals in northeastern Patagonia, Argentina. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2022, 185: 114288. DOI:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.114288 |
| 86. | Sindoval Silva de Souza, Ítalo Nascimento Freitas, Sandy de Oliveira Gonçalves, et al. Toxicity induced via ingestion of naturally-aged polystyrene microplastics by a small-sized terrestrial bird and its potential role as vectors for the dispersion of these pollutants. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2022, 434: 128814. DOI:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.128814 |
| 87. | Jacquelyn K. Grace, Elena Duran, Mary Ann Ottinger, et al. Microplastics in the Gulf of Mexico: A Bird’s Eye View. Sustainability, 2022, 14(13): 7849. DOI:10.3390/su14137849 |
| 88. | Kevin B. Briggs, D. Charles Deeming, Mark Mainwaring. Plastic is a Widely Used and Preferentially Chosen Nest Material for Birds in Rural Woodland Habitats. SSRN Electronic Journal, 2022. DOI:10.2139/ssrn.4122959 |
| 89. | H. Thilagam, P. Pandi, S. Swetha, et al. Microplastics and Pollutants. DOI:10.1007/978-3-031-54565-8_4 |
| 90. | Farooq Dar, Mayowa Olapade, Abdul-Rasheed Ottun, et al. LIZARD: Pervasive Sensing for Autonomous Plastic Litter Monitoring. 2024 IEEE/ACM Ninth International Conference on Internet-of-Things Design and Implementation (IoTDI), DOI:10.1109/IoTDI61053.2024.00008 |
| 91. | Alexandra Ershova, Yulia Frank. Analysis of Microplastics and Nanoplastics. DOI:10.1016/B978-0-443-15779-0.00019-5 |
| 92. | Shahin Shajahan, Karthikeyan Perumal, S. Selvam. Meso and Microplastic Risk Assessment in Marine Environments. DOI:10.1016/B978-0-323-90980-8.00003-0 |
| 93. | Mary Ann Ottinger, Michael J. Quinn. Hormones and Reproduction of Vertebrates, Volume 4. DOI:10.1016/B978-0-443-16024-0.00009-5 |
Figures(2)
DownLoad:
Email Alerts
RSS Feeds