4.7 Article

Occurrence and Quantification of Natural and Microplastic Items in Urban Streams: The Case of Mugnone Creek (Florence, Italy)

期刊

TOXICS
卷 10, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/toxics10040159

关键词

microplastic; fibers; urban rivers; FTIR; Florence

资金

  1. Universita degli Studi di Firenze

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The terrestrial environment is a significant source of microplastics that end up in the oceans. Urban streams, such as Mugnone Creek in Florence, Italy, play a crucial role in the transport of microplastics from the terrestrial source to marine areas. This study found that the flux of microplastics and natural fibers in the creek was influenced by urbanization, rainfall, domestic wastewater discharge, and vehicular traffic.
The terrestrial environment is an important contributor of microplastics (MPs) to the oceans. Urban streams, strictly interwoven in the city network and to the MPs' terrestrial source, have a relevant impact on the MP budget of large rivers and, in turn, marine areas. We investigated the fluxes (items/day) of MPs and natural fibers of Mugnone Creek, a small stream crossing the highly urbanized landscape of Florence (Italy) and ending in the Arno River (and eventually to the Tyrrhenian Sea). Measurements were done in dry and wet seasons for two years (2019-2020); stream sediments were also collected in 2019. The highest loads of anthropogenic particles were observed in the 2019 wet season (10(9) items/day) at the creek outlet. The number of items in sediments increased from upstream (500 items/kg) to urban sites (1540 items/kg). Fibers were the dominant shape class; they were mostly cellulosic in composition. Among synthetic items, fragments of butadiene-styrene (SBR), indicative of tire wear, were observed. Domestic wastewater discharge and vehicular traffic are important sources of pollution for Mugnone Creek, especially during rain events. The study of small creeks is of pivotal importance to limit the availability of MPs in the environment.

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

4.7
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