4.8 Article

Are We Speaking the Same Language? Recommendations for a Definition and Categorization Framework for Plastic Debris

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 53, 期 3, 页码 1039-1047

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b05297

关键词

-

资金

  1. German Water Chemistry Society
  2. European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant [660306]
  3. German Federal Ministry for Transportation and Digital Infrastructure
  4. German Federal Ministry for Education and Research [02WRS1378, 01UU1603, 03F0789D]
  5. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [660306] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The accumulation of plastic litter in natural environments is a global issue. Concerns over potential negative impacts on the economy, wildlife, and human health provide strong incentives for improving the sustainable use of plastics. Despite the many voices raised on the issue, we lack a consensus on how to define and categorize plastic debris. This is evident for microplastics, where inconsistent size classes are used and where the materials to be included are under debate. While this is inherent in an emerging research field, an ambiguous terminology results in confusion and miscommunication that may compromise progress in research and mitigation measures. Therefore, we need to be explicit on what exactly we consider plastic debris. Thus, we critically discuss the advantages and disadvantages of a unified terminology, propose a definition and categorization framework, and highlight areas of uncertainty. Going beyond size classes, our framework includes physicochemical properties (polymer composition, solid state, solubility) as defining criteria and size, shape, color, and origin as classifiers for categorization. Acknowledging the rapid evolution of our knowledge on plastic pollution, our framework will promote consensus building within the scientific and regulatory community based on a solid scientific foundation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据