中文   |   English   |   Email Alert
Fig/Tab
Advanced Search
image

Environmental Microplastic Pollution Risks Associated with Plastic Waste Landfilling

Hang Liu , Yu Su , Yutao Cheng , Ziyang Lou , Cheng Peng , Jie Wang , Yanhua Wang , Lei Wang , Rong Ji

Progress in Chemistry ›› 2025, Vol. 37 ›› Issue (1) : 32 -45.

PDF
Progress in Chemistry ›› 2025, Vol. 37 ›› Issue (1) : 32-45 DOI: 10.7536/PC240712
research-article
Scan to read & Share
Environmental Microplastic Pollution Risks Associated with Plastic Waste Landfilling
Author information +
History +
PDF

Abstract

Microplastic pollution arising from the aging and decomposition of plastic waste poses a significant challenge to global plastic pollution control. Landfills have been the primary disposal sites for solid waste for a long time, and the considerable amount of plastic waste accumulated in landfills has emerged as a crucial source of microplastics in terrestrial ecosystems. This paper mainly reviews the development of plastic waste landfilling and its evolution in the landfilling process, analyzes the external input and internal generation process of microplastics in landfills, and summarizes the abundance and structural composition characteristics of microplastics reported in the landfill piles (580-168 000 items/kg) and leachate (420-291 000 items/m3) and the surrounding soils (4-14 200 items/kg) and groundwater (3000-27 200 items/m3). This paper further reveals the migration of microplastics within the waste-soil-groundwater system, and the exposure routes of humans to microplastics through the contaminated soil, air, and edible plants. As the risks and control measures to the entire environmental process of microplastics in landfills urgently require investigation, this paper puts forward key scientific and technical issues and management suggestions.

Contents

1 Introduction

2 Distribution and lifecycle of landfills

2.1 Development and distribution of landfills

2.2 Full lifecycle of landfills

3 Sources and evolution of plastics in landfills

3.1 Primary sources of landfill plastic waste

3.2 Fragmentation of landfilled plastic waste

4 Occurrence and distribution of microplastics in landfills

4.1 Microplastics in waste piles

4.2 Microplastics in leachates

5 Migration and impacts of microplastics in landfills

5.1 Microplastic spread to the environment

5.2 Microplastic transfer to plants

6 Perspectives

Graphical abstract

Keywords

landfills / plastic waste / microplastics / occurrence and distribution / transport and transformation / environmental risks

Cite this article

Download citation ▾
Hang Liu, Yu Su, Yutao Cheng, Ziyang Lou, Cheng Peng, Jie Wang, Yanhua Wang, Lei Wang, Rong Ji. Environmental Microplastic Pollution Risks Associated with Plastic Waste Landfilling. Progress in Chemistry, 2025, 37(1): 32-45 DOI:10.7536/PC240712

登录浏览全文

4963

注册一个新账户 忘记密码

1 Introduction

The global environmental pollution caused by mismanaged plastic waste is one of the major environmental issues facing humanity today[1-2]. The use of plastics is closely related to the development level of a country (region). In the absence of policy intervention, the higher the economic development level of a country or region, the greater the per capita use of plastics, and consequently, the higher the amount of waste generated. Data shows that globally, 2.01 billion tons of solid waste are produced annually, with waste plastics accounting for approximately 12.0% (Figure 1a)[3]. Between 1950 and 2015, the world generated 6.3 billion tons of plastic waste, with an annual production approaching 100 million tons[4]. However, on average, only 9.0% and 12.0% of these plastic wastes were recycled and incinerated, respectively, while most (4.9 billion tons) have been landfilled or directly discharged into the natural environment[4]. By 2020, the recycling rate of waste plastics in some countries had exceeded 50%, but the recycling rates in other countries remained low (Table 1). For example, Australia's recycling rate for waste plastics was only 11.5%, significantly lower than that of some countries with lower per capita GDP but higher per capita generation of waste plastics, such as Germany and South Korea, which reached 56.1% and 53.7%, respectively[5]. As of 2022, the global average recycling rate for solid waste remains at a low level (13.5%), with only 11.1% and 5.5% of solid waste being incinerated and composted, respectively, and the majority (about 69.6%) being dumped, simply landfilled, or sanitary landfilled (Figure 1b)[3,6]. It is projected that by 2050, the amount of global plastic waste dumped and landfilled will increase to 12 billion tons[4,7].
Landfills store a large amount of waste plastics and are one of the important sources of microplastics in the environment. Several studies have reported the presence of microplastics in landfilled waste and its leachate[7-8]. During the long-term stabilization process of landfilled waste, the environment where waste plastics are located is complex and variable. Waste plastics undergo wear from mutual compression of waste, erosion by acidic or alkaline high-salinity leachate, rupture from landfill gas impacts, and microbial degradation, leading to a series of physical, chemical, and biological changes, which in turn form microplastics[8-9]. These microplastics will continue to age further under the effects of rinsing, soaking, collision, and corrosion by leachate[10-11]. Additionally, a small number of studies have detected microplastics in the soil, groundwater, air, and plants within and around landfills[12⇓⇓-15]. Therefore, the outward migration of microplastics from landfills and their environmental exposure risks cannot be ignored.
Since 2019, research related to microplastics in landfills has begun to receive attention. As of June 2024, the Web of Science database has indexed 128 papers containing the keywords "landfill + microplastics," including 12 reviews. These reviews focus on introducing detection methods, abundance, or removal strategies for microplastics in landfills, and less frequently discuss the formation process, migration behavior, and environmental risks of microplastics, particularly without addressing the potential contamination of edible plants by microplastics within landfills. This is crucial for fully understanding the sources and fate of microplastics in landfills, as well as their exposure risks to animals and humans.
In this regard, this paper provides an overview of the global production and disposal status of solid waste, the regional distribution characteristics of landfills, the sources and evolution of plastics in landfills, as well as the occurrence, distribution, and environmental transfer risks of microplastics. The aim is to raise awareness among all sectors of society about the environmental exposure risks associated with microplastics derived from plastic waste in landfills. Addressing the current research gaps in this field, this paper outlines the urgent issues that need to be resolved, hoping to provide direction for future scientific research, technological development, and policy formulation, thereby offering scientific support for the risk assessment and management of microplastic pollution in landfills.

2 Landfill Distribution And Lifecycle

2.1 Landfill Development And Site Distribution

The practice of covering waste with soil, a form of landfill, can be traced back to 3000 BC to 1000 BC. Due to the lack of any environmental protection measures, simple landfills led to sanitation issues, which subsequently spurred the development of sanitary landfill techniques[16]. Sanitary landfilling involves the use of impermeable layers, leveling, compaction, and covering for the treatment of solid waste, as well as the management of gases, leachate, and pests. In 1930, the United States constructed the world's first sanitary landfill using a single layer of compacted clay as an impermeable barrier. After 1982, these rudimentary compacted clay liners were progressively upgraded to single-layer geomembrane liners, double-layer geomembrane liners, and bentonite waterproof blankets. China began adopting sanitary landfill technology in the early 1990s. In 1991, the first sanitary landfill using a natural clay liner was completed in Tiansiling, Hangzhou; in 1997, Xiaping in Shenzhen became the first to utilize high-density polyethylene (PE) geomembranes for horizontal impermeability. To date, sanitary landfilling has become one of the primary methods for waste disposal. By 2022, 197 large-scale landfills had been built across 18 states in the US[17]. California has the highest number of landfills (58), followed by Florida (19). This is mainly because California is one of the most populous and economically developed states in the US, producing a large amount of waste that requires more large-scale landfills for processing[18]. In the same year, China operated a total of 444 sanitary landfills for municipal solid waste, with a daily processing capacity of 215,000 tons, and an annual processing volume of 30.432 million tons[19]. Among these, Guangdong (32) and the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region (31) each have more than 30 landfills; Heilongjiang (27), Shandong (24), Shaanxi (24), Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (23), Liaoning (23), Jilin (23), Hunan (23), and Hubei (21) all have over 20 landfills. In terms of waste processing volume, Guangdong (2.898 million tons), Liaoning (2.651 million tons), the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region (2.091 million tons), Hunan (2.081 million tons), and Shaanxi (2.052 million tons) all exceeded 2 million tons. Guangdong leads the nation in both the number of sanitary landfills and the volume of waste processed, which is related to its large population, significant generation of municipal solid waste, and high demand for landfills. Additionally, regions like the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Heilongjiang, and Liaoning have abundant land resources, making it easier to construct large-scale landfills. In the future, as urbanization accelerates, the application of sanitary landfilling in municipal solid waste management will decrease compared to incineration, but it will still play a role in temporary storage and as a fallback option. Especially for excess waste generated during emergencies (such as typhoons), fly ash from incineration power plants, and municipal solid waste produced during maintenance periods, landfilling remains necessary for their disposal.

2.2 The Full Life Cycle Of A Landfill

The lifecycle of a landfill includes three stages: construction, operation, and closure and restoration, which can last approximately 10 to 15 years. The construction phase mainly involves the building of the main body of the landfill and its equipment, supporting projects, production management and auxiliary facilities, as well as living service facilities. When selecting a suitable site for municipal solid waste landfill, factors such as local population density, land resource conditions, economic and technological development levels, and the composition and properties of the waste must be considered, ensuring that the site selection is reasonable, the scale is appropriate, the technology is feasible, the equipment is reliable, and it meets the requirements of sustainable development. The design and construction of sanitary landfills in our country should comply with relevant standards such as the "Technical Specifications for Sanitary Landfill of Municipal Solid Waste" (CJJ1-2004), the "Construction Standards for Projects of Sanitary Landfill Treatment of Municipal Solid Waste," and the "Pollution Control Standards for Sanitary Landfill of Municipal Solid Waste" (GB 16889-2008). The main body of the landfill includes the bottom liner system (for isolating leachate), landfill cells (for storing waste), drainage and gas collection systems (for collecting rainwater and leachate and biogas produced from waste decomposition), and the top cover system (for sealing the top of the landfill)[20-21]. For waste with higher hazards, a double-layer liner system is required, where the upper part above the primary impermeable layer serves as the leachate collection layer, while the lower part down to the base soil constitutes the leakage detection layer. The operational phase includes daily management of the landfill, leachate treatment, and utilization of landfill gas. During the landfilling process, layered covering (covering each compacted layer of waste with soil) and impermeabilization are implemented to control pollution spread, while monitoring gas emissions and leachate treatment. The closure and restoration phase includes activities such as re-greening at the original site, excavation and remediation, clearance and repurposing, and ecological restoration, aimed at eliminating pollution sources and restoring the land's functionality.

3 The Sources And Evolution Of Plastics In Landfills

3.1 The Main Sources Of Landfilled Plastic Waste

Plastic waste in landfills mainly comes from various types of plastics discarded during daily life, industrial and agricultural production, and construction. In most urban landfills, the most common type is plastic packaging, including materials such as PE, polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyamide (PA), and polylactic acid[22]. Because these synthetic polymers account for a high proportion of globally produced plastics[4], they naturally become the main types of plastics in landfills. For coastal cities, aquaculture buoys and marine plastic debris are the primary sources of landfill plastics[23]. On beaches around the world, there is a widespread presence of PS foam blocks or particles and cigarette butts (containing cellulose acetate)[24-25]. According to data from the "2021 China Marine Ecological Environment Status Bulletin," in China's nearshore areas, there are an average of 4,580, 154,816, and 4,770 pieces of plastic waste per square kilometer on the sea surface, beach, and seafloor, respectively (mainly plastic ropes, plastic fragments, and plastic bags)[26]. In response to such severe marine plastic pollution, relevant ministries have successively issued the "Action Plan for Plastic Pollution Control during the 14th Five-Year Plan"[27] and the "Action Plan for Marine Debris Cleanup in Coastal Cities"[28], clearly proposing to strengthen the standardized recycling and disposal of plastic waste, with goals to be achieved by 2025 and 2027, including "timely and effective cleanup of shore debris in 65 bays, with a significant reduction in the density of floating debris" and "a substantial decrease in the density of marine debris in 65 bays, reaching a consistently clean level." As marine debris cleanup efforts progress, non-recyclable plastic waste will be landfilled in coastal city landfills, leading to an increase in the base amount of plastic waste.
Sludge from wastewater treatment plants is one of the main sources of microplastics in landfills. Many studies have confirmed that domestic sewage contains a large amount of polymer microparticles derived from additives in personal care products and cosmetics[29-30], and industrial wastewater also widely contains synthetic fibers and plastic particles produced by various plastic manufacturing processes[8,31]. In addition, during use, plastic products (such as fabrics, cleaning sponges, food packaging, etc.) can undergo mechanical wear or chemical degradation, producing and releasing a large number of microplastics[32⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓-38]. The domestic sewage and industrial wastewater containing these microplastics are discharged into wastewater treatment plants, and after being treated with different processes, more than 90.0% will be concentrated in the sludge[39], part of which will be disposed of by landfilling (22.0% of the sludge from wastewater treatment plants in the United States is landfilled[40], and 54.0% of the sludge from 11 key city wastewater treatment plants in China is landfilled[41]). Furthermore, microplastics suspended in the atmosphere, including rubber particles generated from tire wear and fragments from peeling paint on roads or building exteriors, etc.[13,42], can also enter landfills through dry and wet deposition during the landfill process.

3.2 Micro-fragmentation Process Of Landfilled Plastic Waste

Plastic waste undergoes a long transformation process after being landfilled. The stabilization cycle of landfill waste mainly includes five stages: initial adjustment, transition, acidification, methanogenesis, and maturation. From the moment the waste is placed in the landfill, it enters the initial adjustment stage, where easily degradable components are decomposed by aerobic microorganisms into CO2 and H2O. As O2 is consumed, the decomposition of waste shifts from aerobic to facultative anaerobic, with hydrolysis of organic matter and anaerobic fermentation producing large amounts of organic acids (acidification stage). These organic acids and alcohols are further broken down into CO2 and CH4, etc. (methanogenesis stage). After the easily biodegradable components in the waste are completely consumed, the maturation stage begins. Although petro-based plastics, due to their high molecular weight, hydrophobicity, and strong chemical bonds, are not easily utilized by microorganisms, field investigations have confirmed that plastic waste will be decomposed and fragmented into microplastics during the long-term stabilization process. In 2022, Huang et al.[43] revealed an exponential growth pattern in the abundance of microplastics in landfill waste piles over time (7-31 years), and after 30 years of landfilling, the relative abundance of microorganisms with plastic degradation functions in the plastic waste increased more than threefold, indicating that biodegradation, after long-term natural acclimatization, is one of the main drivers for the microfragmentation of landfilled plastics. Additionally, plastic degradation releases small molecular products and additives; for example, bisphenol A, a characteristic residual monomer and degradation product of polycarbonate (PC) plastics, and phthalate plasticizers can leach or hydrolyze from plastics[44-45]. In 2021, Zhang et al.[44] characterized the degree of degradation of plastic waste at different landfill ages by analyzing the concentration ratios of polymers, monomers, and plasticizers, finding that the "bisphenol A/PC" and "plasticizer/microplastic" ratios were positively and negatively correlated with landfill time, respectively. This indicates that PC plastics degrade and release bisphenol A over long periods in landfills, while the leaching of plasticizers occurs faster than the formation of microplastics. Therefore, by detecting the content of plastic additives in landfilled waste, it is also possible to infer that the plastics have undergone degradation. Given that early landfilled plastics have been buried for several decades, a significant portion must have already degraded into microplastics.
Simulated experiments of relevant conditions in the landfill environment have shown that plastic aging generates microplastics. The light-protected environment where landfill waste is located is extremely complex and dynamically changing, with garbage piling and compression forming frictional shear forces, and aerobic degradation releasing heat, among other factors. Although numerous studies have confirmed that mechanical force and heat are common factors leading to plastic aging[46], there is still relatively limited understanding of how these two effects influence the transformation of plastics into microplastics in landfills. In 2023, Huang et al.[47] selected leachate from a Shanghai landfill site over 10 years old (filtered through 0.45 μm and deoxygenated) to conduct a systematic study on the aging behavior of PE plastic films under mechanical stirring (200 r/min) and high temperature (80 ℃) in light-protected leachate. The study found that the surface structure of plastics suffers damage under mechanical forces, while depolymerization and degradation occur in a high-temperature environment. This is because hydroxyl radicals generated by soluble organic matter in the leachate promote the pyrolysis of plastics. These two factors lead to more pronounced surface damage, forming pores, cracks, and scratches, thereby accelerating the aging and micromineralization of plastics, and releasing microplastics at a concentration of (14.2 ± 0.5) μg/L.
It is noteworthy that aged plastics in leachate, due to their weakened properties, have a higher rate of damage and depolymerization under the continuous effects of mechanical forces and high temperatures compared to virgin plastics, making them more likely to generate microplastics. Before being influenced by the complex conditions of landfills, plastic waste has already undergone aging. After being buried, the speed at which it ages and generates microplastics under the erosion of leachate will accelerate. For example, ultraviolet light can promote the degradation of PP nonwoven fabrics and films in artificially prepared landfill leachate, releasing dissolved organic matter and nanoplastics[10]. In addition, human interventions may also accelerate the aging and fragmentation of buried plastics. For instance, the widely applied in-situ aeration in landfills[48], which aims to promote the stabilization of landfill waste through high or low-pressure aeration and leachate recirculation, but these external forces inevitably lead to increased flow, friction, and wear of microplastics in the leachate, thus promoting their miniaturization. Under these physical, biological, and chemical actions, aged plastic waste in marine environments, once buried, has the potential to rapidly generate microplastics. Therefore, the presence of microplastics in coastal city landfills might be higher than in inland city landfills.

4 The Distribution Of Microplastics Within Landfills

4.1 Microplastics In Waste Piles

There is a large amount of microplastics derived from commonly used petroleum-based plastics in landfilled waste. Currently, many scholars in China have conducted surveys and analyses on the abundance and particle size distribution of microplastics in landfill waste piles, with representative research results shown in Figure 2a, b. In 2019, Su et al. [7] investigated and analyzed the microplastics in the Shanghai Laogang Landfill, finding that there were 62 ± 23 microplastics per gram of waste (with an average particle size of 1.0 mm), of which 59.8% were fragments, and most were made of PE. In 2021, Wan et al. [14] detected microplastic contents ranging from 580 to 103,080 pieces/kg in the waste from a landfill in southeastern Guangdong. Since no effective anti-seepage measures were taken at this site, the study also reported the abundance of microplastics in the underlying soil as 570 to 14,200 pieces/kg, with fibers being more prevalent than films and fragments, and sizes generally ranging from 0.03 to 0.15 mm. Among these microplastics, PE, PP, and PET accounted for 29.8%, 19.4%, and 7.9%, respectively. In the same year, Zhang et al. [44] analyzed the microplastics floated out from mineralized waste in a landfill in Henan, showing that the abundance of microplastics was 25 to 113 pieces/g, with particle sizes mainly distributed in the 0.5-1.0 mm and >1.0 mm ranges (accounting for 30.1% and 31.5%, respectively). The main components were also PE (21.4%-30.1%), PP (11.8%-15.1%), and PET (9.2%-12.9%). Using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, PET and PC microplastics were detected in the residual waste after flotation, with contents of 37.9-674 μg/g and 0.07-1.0 μg/g, respectively. In 2022, Li et al. [49] reported that the abundances of microplastics in two landfills in Chengdu (sanitary) and Yibin (non-sanitary) in Sichuan were 10-144 pieces/g and 4-168 pieces/g, respectively. Among them, microplastics with sizes <0.1 mm (37.8%) and 0.1-0.5 mm (34.3%) were predominant, mainly composed of PET (19.1%), PS (18.1%), PE (16.8%), and PP (13.4%). In 2023, Lin et al. [50] found, after testing a sanitary landfill in Shenzhen, that each gram of waste contained 81-133 microplastics, with particle sizes ranging from 30 to 5,000 μm (average particle size 1.2 ± 0.1 mm). From these research findings, it can be seen that while the composition of microplastics in landfilled waste in different regions of China is similar, the quantities differ by three orders of magnitude.
The difference in landfill age affects the presence characteristics of microplastics in waste piles. In 2019, Su et al.[7] found that compared to pristine PE microplastics, the carbonyl index of PE microplastics in landfills over 20 years increased from 0.2 to 1.3, indicating significant aging of microplastics during the landfill process. In 2022, Yu et al.[51] discovered in garbage landfilled for 7 and 27 years in Shanghai, that the carbonyl index of PP microplastics increased from 0.16 to 0.24, meaning that the degree of plastic aging increases with the age of the landfill; the crystallinity of PE microplastics decreased from 55.6% to 20.8%, indicating a significant decrease in mechanical properties of plastics as the landfill age increases. In 2022, Huang et al.[43] analyzed microplastics in garbage with landfill ages ranging from 7 to 31 years at a site in Shanghai, finding that the number of microplastics increased exponentially with longer landfill time (from 71 ± 18 to 653 ± 191 per g of plastic); the generation rate of PE microplastics was the highest (28 per g of plastic per year), while the generation rates of PP and PS microplastics were relatively lower (15 and 10 per g of plastic per year, respectively). This is related to the varying degrees of aging of different polymers during the landfill process. The carbonyl index of PE microplastics increased by an order of magnitude (from 0.2 to 2.6), whereas the increase in the carbonyl index of PP and PS microplastics was significantly lower (from 0.1 to 1.0 and 0.4, respectively). Based on the generation rate of microplastics in waste piles, it is estimated that approximately 17.1 billion microplastics could be generated per ton of plastic waste after 50 years of landfilling. In 2023, Lou et al.[52] used pyrolysis-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry to analyze garbage samples from the southern and northern areas of a landfill in Zhejiang, finding that the average particle size of microplastics in the southern area was slightly smaller (1.5 vs 2.0 mm) but the content was higher (7.6 vs 5.5 g/kg) and there were more fibers (28.4% vs 11.0%). This may be because the southern area has a longer landfill period (12-16 years) than the northern area (5-12 years), leading to more microplastics generated from the aging of fabric fibers over a longer time. In 2023, Sholokhova et al.[53] investigated the content of microplastics in garbage at the Lapės landfill in Kaunas County, Lithuania, and similarly found that the content increased with the age and depth of the landfill (3-55 per g or 1.7-52.8 g/kg). These research results indicate that the duration of landfilling is a key factor limiting the generation of microplastics from plastic waste, also suggesting that older landfill sites may accumulate more microplastics.

4.2 Microplastics In Leachate From Waste

Microplastics are commonly found in landfill leachate. Currently, many researchers internationally have investigated the abundance and size distribution of microplastics in landfill leachate, with representative results shown in Figure 2c, d. In 2018, Praagh et al.[54-55] collected leachate samples from landfills in Iceland, Norway, and Finland, detecting microplastics ranging from 50 to 5000 μm, with an average abundance of 4 per liter, primarily composed of PE, PVC, PA, and polyurethane. In 2019, He et al.[22] collected 12 leachate samples from four active and two closed landfills in Shanghai, Wuxi, Suzhou, and Changzhou, and analyzed the microplastics using Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR). The results showed that the average abundance of microplastics in the leachate was 0 to 24 per liter, with more than half being fragments (58.6%), mainly concentrated in the 100 to 1000 μm range (74.9%). These microplastics included 17 types of polymers, predominantly PE and PP (69.9%), which may be related to the higher production and usage of PE and PP plastics. Compared to microplastics within the landfill mass, those in the leachate were smaller, indicating that these microplastics are more likely to leach out from the waste. In 2020, Xu et al.[56] used a custom sampler to collect and analyze microplastics in the 20 to 100 μm range from a landfill leachate in Shanghai, finding that the microplastics were mainly composed of PP (40.0%), PA (36.0%), and artificial fibers (18.0%), with an abundance of 291 ± 91 per liter. This value is significantly higher than the number concentration (4 to 13 per liter) of microplastics (70 to 3670 μm) reported by Su et al.[7] in a Shanghai landfill leachate. In 2022, Mohammadi et al.[57] analyzed microplastics (1000 to 5000 μm) in the leachate of the Bushehr Port landfill in Iran, finding that their abundance varied seasonally (63 to 92 per liter), with the highest in summer and the lowest in winter; fibers and fragments were more common (44.4% and 39.2%, respectively), and most (80.0%) were PA microplastics. In 2023, Trihadiningrum et al.[58] reported the presence of microplastics (100 to 5000 μm) in the leachate of the Randegan landfill in Mojokerto, Indonesia: the average abundance was 9 per liter, with fibers (64.4%) being the most common, followed by fragments (28.9%) and films (6.7%); the particle sizes were mainly distributed between 350 and 1000 μm (64.4%), followed by 100 to 350 μm (31.1%) and 1000 to 5000 μm (4.4%). In 2024, Chamanee et al.[59] detected microplastics (1000 to 5000 μm) in the leachate of open landfills in Sri Lanka, finding an average abundance of 3 ± 2 per liter, with over half of the particles having a size between 1000 and 2000 μm, and PE being the most common (54.7%), followed by PP (13.3%) and PS (11.6%). The above studies show that different countries and regions have varying amounts of large-size (100 to 5000 μm) microplastics in landfill leachate, but there is a lack of information on the presence of small-size (<100 μm) microplastics. Some studies have found that even after aeration and sedimentation treatment, there are still <100 μm microplastics remaining in the leachate (2 per liter), suggesting that these treatment processes cannot completely remove small-size microplastics[58]. Therefore, understanding the content of small-size microplastics in landfill leachate is crucial for predicting their environmental pollution risks.
Leachate from landfills typically contains high concentrations of new pollutants such as antibiotics and heavy metals, which can alter the characteristics of microplastics. In 2019, Wang et al.[60] detected multiple types of antibiotics (tetracyclines, sulfonamides, fluoroquinolones, macrolides, and β-lactams) and metal elements (copper, zinc, chromium, cadmium, lead, manganese, nickel, antimony, and cobalt) in leachate samples from three landfills in Guiyang, Suzhou, and Hangzhou, with total concentrations reaching 4.0 to 4.5 μg/L and 9.2 to 10.8 mg/L, respectively. In 2021, He et al.[61] analyzed leachate samples from four landfills in Italy and found higher concentrations of sulfadiazine (2.1 to 22.1 μg/L), sulfameth azole (8.0 to 95.8 μg/L), sulfamethazine (3.9 to 8.5 μg/L), ciprofloxacin (0 to 434.7 μg/L), enrofloxacin (0 to 9.1 μg/L), and erythromycin (8.5 to 252.8 μg/L). Based on extensive research on the adsorption behavior of microplastics for organic compounds or heavy metals[62-63], it is inevitable that microplastics in leachate will interact with coexisting pollutants through various mechanisms (such as hydrophobic interactions, hydrogen bonding, π-π interactions, electrostatic interactions, and pore filling) to form complex pollution. However, the specific exogenous pollutants contained in microplastics in leachate, as well as the concentrations and distribution of these pollutants, are still unclear. Due to the large fluctuations in leachate water quality, the adsorption of pollutants by microplastics is influenced by various factors, including the structural properties of microplastics (such as particle size[64], degree of aging[65], crystallinity[66], and surface functional groups[67]), the hydrophilicity/hydrophobicity and charge status of organic pollutants[68], and environmental factors (pH, temperature, natural organic matter, and ionic strength[69]) all affect the interfacial behavior between microplastics and other pollutants to varying degrees.

5 Migration And Impact Of Microplastics In Landfills

5.1 Diffusion Of Microplastics From Landfills Into The Environment

Microplastics in landfills can spread to the surrounding soil, water, and air, leading to non-point source pollution. Sanitary landfills constructed and operated according to standard technical specifications should effectively prevent the environmental pollution caused by microplastics within the landfill. However, open dumpsites still exist globally, and due to the lack of bottom impermeable layers and top cover measures, the microplastics within these sites are inevitably dispersed into the surrounding environment under the influence of wind, precipitation, and other factors. Some older sanitary landfills are approaching their capacity limits, with excessive waste volumes and unstable piles, making landfill operations difficult. Particularly, after a landfill exceeds its operational lifespan or reaches its designated capacity, if management is inadequate, it is highly likely that microplastics and the pollutants they carry will leak from the landfill soil. Several studies have confirmed the presence of microplastics in landfill soils. In 2022, Fernandes et al.[70] conducted research on a landfill in São André, Brazil, and found that the abundance of microplastics in the top 20 cm of soil was as high as 1,790 to 2,393 items/kg. In 2023, Ghorbaninejad Fard Shirazi et al.[71] discovered that the abundance of microplastics in the soil of the Kahrizak landfill in southern Tehran, Iran, ranged from 225 ± 138 to 863 ± 681 items/kg, with 90.0% being PE, PP, and PS microplastics, and 42.8% having a particle size between 100 and 500 μm. In 2024, Guo et al.[72] detected microplastics in the surface soil of a landfill in Hangzhou, finding that the abundance of microplastics increased from 4 to 12 items/kg with increasing soil depth, particularly detecting microplastics with a particle size <10 μm (accounting for 65.6%). These microplastics in landfill soils may spread to the surrounding soil. In 2023, Kim et al.[15] found microplastics in the soil around two landfills in South Korea, with average abundances of 73 and 98 items/kg, mainly in the form of fragments, fibers, and films, and primarily composed of PP and PE (accounting for 62.5% and 65.3%, respectively). Additionally, microplastics entering the soil from waste inevitably interact with coexisting pollutants, potentially altering the distribution and migration behavior of these pollutants. Chen et al.[73] found that after adding 0.5 wt% of PE, polyacrylonitrile, and PET microplastics to soil, the soil aggregates decreased and became less stable, with increased adsorption of the hydrophobic organic compound phenanthrene but decreased adsorption of the heavy metal Pb, indicating that microplastics inhibit the migration of phenanthrene while promoting the migration of Pb in the soil. Thorsten et al.[74] analyzed the distribution coefficient of the food additive sorbic acid between PE microplastics and soil, finding that its distribution coefficient on microplastics was lower than that in soil; when the addition of PE microplastics in soil reached 10 wt%, the overall adsorption of sorbic acid by the soil decreased. This suggests that microplastics may enhance the mobility of pollutants by reducing the adsorption capacity of the soil. Notably, microplastics in landfills exhibit aging characteristics, and aging can promote the migration of pollutants by enhancing the mobility of microplastics and their adsorption of pollutants. Liu et al.[75] pointed out that after UV or ozone aging, PS nanoplastics showed higher mobility in porous media and irreversible adsorption of both nonpolar pollutants such as pyrene and polar pollutants such as 4-nonylphenol, further facilitating pollutant migration. Therefore, when microplastics from landfills spread to the environment, they inevitably carry other pollutants, potentially increasing environmental risks.
During the processes of waste transfer and landfill operations, the waste to be landfilled or already excavated is directly exposed to the air, and the microplastics within can migrate over long distances under the influence of wind. In 2024, Kannankai et al.[13] reported that the northeast monsoon carried microplastics from a landfill in India to urban areas, serving as a major source of microplastics in the city's air, providing observational data for the hypothesis of microplastic transmission from landfills to the atmosphere. Microplastics suspended in urban air can be inhaled into the human body, accumulating in the lungs and respiratory tract, leading to health issues related to the respiratory system[76]. Microplastics may also impair human immunity (causing abnormal immune responses or reduced immune efficacy)[77], and potentially harm the health of the human nervous, digestive, and reproductive systems[78]. Long-term exposure of humans to microplastics may increase the risk of chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes, as well as cancer[79].
In addition to migrating between the landfill waste and soil, microplastics in unsanitary landfills/dumps (especially those open-air sites built before 2005) can also contaminate groundwater through leachate. In 2021, Manikanda et al.[80] detected PP, PS, and other microplastics in the groundwater of an open dump site in India, with an abundance of 3-23 pieces/L. In 2022, Wan et al.[14] reported that the abundance of microplastics in the leachate and groundwater of a non-compliant landfill in South China was 3-25 and 11-17 pieces/L, respectively. The pollution levels of microplastics in these two media were similar, indicating that the microplastics in the groundwater of the landfill mainly originated from the leachate. Approximately 85.0% of the microplastics in the leachate and groundwater at this site had a particle size in the range of 20-150 μm, which is smaller than the particle size of microplastics in the landfill waste and underlying soil. This result suggests that smaller-sized microplastics are more likely to migrate into the leachate and groundwater, while larger-sized microplastics tend to remain in the waste and soil. In 2023, Priya et al.[81] detected microplastics in the groundwater of the Kollam landfill in India, with an abundance ranging from 4 to 27 pieces/L (average 12 pieces/L), where fibers and fragments accounted for 48.0% and 22.0%, respectively. The abundance of microplastics in the groundwater of the landfills reported in these studies is quite comparable. However, it is unclear how these microplastics enter the groundwater; they may be contaminated due to leakage or groundwater infiltration. Additionally, continuous rainfall can also cause microplastics in landfills to overflow into surface water. According to Nurhasanah et al.[82], the open dump site in Galuga, Indonesia, discharges approximately 80,640 ± 605 microplastics into the river daily. Besides fluid-mediated transport such as air, leachate, and precipitation, microplastics within landfills can also be "transported" by soil animals. For example, the feeding, excretion, and disturbance behaviors of earthworms can cause the migration of microplastics in the soil[83-84]; while springtails and mites, among others, can erode or chew the soil, thereby promoting the horizontal and vertical migration of soil microplastics[85]. It cannot be ignored that the ingestion of microplastics by soil animals may have negative effects on their health. For instance, exposure to microplastics can cause growth inhibition, intestinal damage, increased mortality, immune responses, impaired reproduction, and altered gut microbiota activity in earthworms[86]. Microplastics released from landfills may also be toxic to aquatic organisms[87-88].

5.2 Transmission Of Microplastics From Landfills To Plants

Microplastics from landfills that spread to the surrounding environment can contaminate edible plants. When landfill operations reach the designed elevation or when no more waste is accepted and use is discontinued, closure measures must be taken to prevent pollutants from migrating outward. After closure, ornamental plants and fruit trees are often planted for ecological restoration. However, before this, the pathway by which microplastics in the landfill contaminate plants through dry and wet deposition has not been blocked. Loppi et al.[89] found that the abundance of microplastics in lichens near a landfill in Italy was the highest (79 per g), while the pollution level of microplastics in lichens 200 m and 1500 m away from the landfill decreased to 13 and 7 per g, respectively. During the ex-situ remediation process of sanitary landfills, excavating and sieving old waste inevitably generates dust, leading to the dispersion of residual microplastics and contamination of vegetation. The humus obtained from sieving old waste is used as organic fertilizer to replenish the soil[90], providing a possibility for the transmission of residual microplastics in the soil-plant system. Although there is currently a lack of direct evidence that microplastics from landfills are absorbed by plants, studies have increasingly reported that microplastics can enter plant tissues through roots or leaves. Yin et al.[91] detected microplastics in the sediments and reeds east of Dongting Lake, with abundances of 511 ± 295 per kg and 0-14 per plant, respectively, indicating that reeds absorb microplastics from the sediments. Li et al.[92] found that submicron and micron-sized PS plastics can enter wheat and lettuce tissues, especially under the action of transpiration pull, where microplastics can be transported via the xylem to edible parts. Zhang et al.[93] proposed that the gaps at the root tips and the junctions between the main and lateral roots are key locations for PS microplastics to enter strawberry roots, but the root absorption pathways differ for different particle sizes: 100 and 200 nm plastics are more likely to be transported from the root tips to the petioles, while 2 μm plastics mainly enter the plant body through the gaps at the junctions between the main and lateral roots. After spraying microplastics on the surface of lettuce leaves, Wang et al.[12] observed that microplastics accumulate in the lettuce leaves, suggesting that stomatal absorption may be the primary pathway for microplastics to enter the leaves. Using scanning electron microscopy combined with X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy, Conti et al.[94] analyzed various vegetables and fruits sold locally in Italy and found that both the leaves and fruits contained microplastics (1.5-2.5 μm), but the degree of contamination varied, possibly related to the level of microplastic pollution in the planting area and the different species' ability to absorb microplastics. Numerous studies have shown that exposure to microplastics can harm a variety of plants (reeds, onions, rice, lettuce, scallions, broad beans, watercress, cucumbers, corn, wheat, and ryegrass, etc.), mainly by affecting plant growth and photosynthesis, and causing genotoxicity and oxidative damage[84]. The accumulation of microplastics in seed coats can limit seed germination and root growth, and additives in microplastics can affect seed germination by inhibiting amylase activity and inducing oxidative stress[95]. Given the biotoxicity of microplastics, when humans consume contaminated vegetables and crops, microplastics may accumulate in the intestines, causing intestinal inflammation and other diseases[96], and small-sized microplastics can cross the intestinal epithelial barrier and be transported to other organs, causing ectopic damage[97].

6 Conclusion and Prospects

In summary, scholars at home and abroad have conducted preliminary investigations into the sources, distribution, and migration and transformation of microplastics in landfills. Compared to the research progress on microplastics in water and soil environments, studies on microplastics in landfills started relatively late. The formation and transformation processes of microplastics in various types of waste and their leachate, as well as the associated environmental and health risks, have not yet been fully clarified. In the future, there is an urgent need to carry out more in-depth research, focusing on solving the following scientific, technological, and management issues:
(1) The characteristics of microplastics in landfills are unclear, and new methods and analytical standards should be established.
Due to the lack of detection standards for microplastics in landfill bodies and their leachate, previous studies have adopted different separation and analysis strategies[98]. The size distribution of microplastics is extremely broad (≤5 mm), and during the collection, extraction, and analysis of microplastic samples from landfilled waste and leachate, the selection of sieves, the recovery rate of sample pretreatment, as well as the resolution and sensitivity of detection techniques, all influence the abundance and size distribution results of microplastics[8]. The composition of waste and its leachate is highly complex. Although digestion steps can reduce the interference of complex matrices on the separation and identification of microplastics, this method may destroy the true form of microplastics, making it impossible to determine the structural composition of other pollutants on the microplastics. Furthermore, there are differences in how various studies report the content of microplastics in landfills. Most studies use spectroscopic techniques for qualitative identification of microplastics, reporting numerical concentrations, while only a few studies have used mass spectrometry to analyze the mass concentration of microplastics. This inconsistency hinders comparison between similar studies and impedes the understanding of the spatiotemporal distribution of microplastics. Therefore, establishing relevant standards for the detection of microplastics in landfill bodies and leachate, and revealing the true distribution characteristics of microplastics within landfills, is a top priority.
(2) The formation mechanism of microplastics within landfills is unclear, and research on the aging process of the landfill mass should be deepened.
Microplastics are a transitional form of plastic waste undergoing mineralization in landfills. A systematic study of the degradation process and influencing factors of buried plastics is key to clarifying the intrinsic sources, existence characteristics, and formation mechanisms of microplastics in landfills. It is also a necessary prerequisite for assessing and controlling the environmental transfer risks of microplastics. During the long-term stabilization process in landfills/dumps, the characteristics of the landfill body change with environmental conditions, but there has been very little research on the transformation of plastics into microplastics within the landfill body. How to comprehensively consider the complex system of the landfill body itself, starting from the perspective of a bioreactor, and to explore the synergistic effects between plastic waste and other organic wastes, as well as the relationship between the microfragmentation process of plastics and the stabilization patterns of traditional landfills, is crucial for understanding the microfragmentation of plastics in landfills. Therefore, it is necessary to identify the characteristics of different stabilization periods in landfills, combine them with the local features of the landfill, and investigate the relationship between waste and plastics to clarify the microfragmentation processes and mechanisms of plastics both within the landfill body and in the leachate under the special dark environment conditions inside the landfill. By combining this with the study of excavation systems in landfills, the accumulation of microplastics in the landfill body and their environmental risks can be examined, and corresponding management methods and strategies proposed.
(3) The environmental transfer risk of microplastics in landfills is unknown, and regional transmission models should be strengthened.
Microplastics have strong persistence in the environment, and small particles have the ability to travel long distances. There is a risk of migration of microplastics from landfills within the waste-soil-groundwater system, but their multi-media transmission behavior and driving factors are not yet clear. Previous studies, using field investigation methods, inferred the potential for vertical infiltration or horizontal diffusion of microplastics based on the correlation between the abundance and composition of microplastics in the landfill body, leachate, soil, and groundwater. However, there is still a lack of in-situ observational evidence for the migration of microplastics from the landfill body or leachate to environmental media. The biogeochemical processes within landfills are extremely complex. During the landfilling process, the infiltration of leachate, the diffusion of landfill gas, changes in pile temperature and mechanical pressure, as well as microbial activities, may all influence the migration behavior of microplastics in different media by altering the surface properties and migration driving forces of microplastics. Microplastics can also serve as carriers for other pollutants such as heavy metals and organic compounds, facilitating their simultaneous transport. Therefore, it is urgent to monitor microplastics in landfills and their surrounding environments, collecting big data on the content and distribution of microplastics in various media including the landfill body, leachate, soil, and groundwater. Combined with indoor simulation experiments, the impact of relevant factors in the landfill environment on the transmission of microplastics in the waste-soil-groundwater system should be investigated. A high-precision numerical model for the transport of microplastics, incorporating multiple media, interfaces, and processes under different forces and hydrogeological conditions in landfills, needs to be constructed to achieve dynamic characterization and prediction of regional microplastic pollution. Additionally, there is currently a lack of research on the contamination status of edible plants around landfills, which is crucial for assessing the exposure risk of landfill microplastics to humans.
(4) The environmental overflow of microplastics from landfills is difficult to manage, and the development of environmental remediation technologies should be accelerated.
Microplastics in landfills can enter the leachate along with the internal water of the waste and precipitation. Effectively managing microplastics in leachate is key to controlling their environmental pollution risks at the source. The biodegradability of landfill leachate is extremely poor, requiring pretreatment followed by advanced treatment processes such as biological treatment-advanced oxidation-biological treatment, biological treatment-membrane filtration (microfiltration, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, or reverse osmosis), two-stage reverse osmosis filtration, and evaporation concentration-ion exchange[55], but these methods cannot completely remove microplastics. Membrane filtration technology can retain microplastics larger than the membrane pore size; advanced oxidation technology can accelerate the degradation of microplastics until mineralization[99-100]. However, these two technologies cannot quickly eliminate microplastics and are only suitable for centralized treatment of landfill leachate. In actual operation, landfills may encounter leachate leakage problems. For example, improper compaction increases the permeability of the waste cover layer, continuous rainfall produces more leachate, and aging and damage to collection systems can all lead to leakage accidents. There is also a risk of microplastic leakage during the excavation and remediation of old landfills or dump sites. Once untreated landfill leachate enters the environment, it becomes even more difficult to manage, and there is an urgent need to develop cost-effective in-situ or ex-situ remediation technologies to address this issue, such as constructing artificial wetlands to use plant absorption and microbial degradation to remove microplastics[55].
(5) The root of managing microplastics in landfills lies in reducing plastic use, and comprehensive measures should be taken to strengthen regulatory oversight.
The microplastics in landfills mainly come from plastic waste. Reducing the amount of plastic waste entering landfills is a fundamental measure to decrease the generation of microplastics and environmental pollution. Sanitary landfilling is an indispensable method of waste disposal, but the capacity (operational lifespan) of landfills is limited. Compared to biodegradable waste, petroleum-based plastics are difficult to degrade, have a longer stabilization period, and occupy more space. Sorting and processing plastic waste can effectively reduce the amount of waste plastics buried and the generation of microplastics, thereby extending the lifecycle of landfills. Although significant progress has been made since the comprehensive launch of waste sorting efforts in 2017 in China, a nationwide legal framework for waste sorting, particularly regulations targeting plastic waste, has yet to be established. It is recommended to accelerate the improvement of relevant policies and laws, making the management of plastic waste legally enforceable, to constrain the landfilling of plastic waste. In terms of reducing the volume of plastic waste in landfills, it is advisable to encourage and support plastic manufacturers to develop new materials that enhance the performance of plastics, prolong their service life, and delay their disposal; or improve the depolymerizability or degradability of plastics, facilitating the recycling of plastic waste and its stabilization after landfilling. Additionally, according to the "Management Measures for Key Pollutant Discharge Units" published by the Ministry of Ecology and Environment, the operation and management units of municipal solid waste landfills with a daily processing capacity of over 500 tons should be listed as key units for groundwater pollution prevention and control. The operation and maintenance units of municipal solid waste landfills (including those already closed) should be designated as key units for environmental risk management, clearly defining their legal obligations to conduct self-monitoring, prevent environmental pollution, and mitigate environmental risks, as well as the responsibilities of various levels of ecological environment authorities to strengthen supervision and management.

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]

Maddela N R, Kakarla D, Venkateswarlu K, Megharaj M. J. Environ. Manag., 2023, 348: 119364.
[2]

Lim X. Nature, 2021, 593(7857): 22.
[3]

Singh S, Malyan S K, Maithani C, Kashyap S, Tyagi V K, Singh R, Malhotra S, Sharma M, Kumar A, Panday B K, Pandey R P. J. Environ. Manag., 2023, 342: 118220.
[4]

Geyer R, Jambeck J R, Law K L. Sci. Adv., 2017, 3(7): 1700782.
[5]

Hossain R, Islam M T, Ghose A, Sahajwalla V. J. Clean. Prod., 2022, 368: 133127.
[6]

Tumu K, Vorst K, Curtzwiler G. J. Environ. Manag., 2023, 348: 119242.
[7]

Su Y L, Zhang Z J, Wu D, Zhan L, Shi H H, Xie B. Water Res., 2019, 164: 114968.
[8]

Chamanee G, Sewwandi M, Wijesekara H, Vithanage M. Waste Manag., 2023, 171: 10.
[9]

Hao Z S, Sun M, Ducoste J J, Benson C H, Luettich S, Castaldi M J, Barlaz M A. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2017, 51(21): 12434.
[10]

Ke Y, Lin L J, Zhang G L, Hong H L, Yan C L. J. Hazard. Mater., 2024, 470: 134092.
[11]

Su Y L, Zhang Z J, Zhu J D, Shi J H, Wei H W, Xie B, Shi H H. Environ. Pollut., 2021, 270: 116278.
[12]

Wang Y, Xiang L L, Wang F, Wang Z Q, Bian Y R, Gu C G, Wen X, Kengara F O, Schäffer A, Jiang X, Xing B S. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2022, 56(23): 16907.
[13]

Kannankai M P, Devipriya S P. Sci. Total Environ., 2024, 908: 168235.
[14]

Wan Y, Chen X, Liu Q, Hu H J, Wu C X, Xue Q. Environ. Pollut., 2022, 293: 118586.
[15]

Kim W K, Park H, Ishii K, Ham G Y. Sustainability, 2023, 15(15): 12057.
[16]

Encyclopedia of China. History of Landfill Development, [2024-07-01]. https://www.zgbk.com/ecph/words?SiteID=1&ID=108229.
[17]

Cusworth D H, Duren R M, Ayasse A K, Jiorle R, Howell K, Aubrey A, Green R O, Eastwood M L, Chapman J W, Thorpe A K, Heckler J, Asner G P, Smith M L, Thoma E, Krause M J, Heins D, Thorneloe S. Science, 2024, 383(6690): 1499.
[18]

Anderson C M, Kissel K A, Field C B, Mach K J. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2018, 52(18): 10829.
[19]

National Bureau of Statistics. 2022 China Municipal Solid Waste Sanitary Landfill, [2024-07-01]. https://data.stats.gov.cn/easyquery.htm?cn=C01&zb=A0C06&sj=2022.
[20]

Kerry Rowe R, Reinert J, Li Y, Awad R. Waste Manag., 2023, 161: 43.
[21]

Krause M J, Eades W, Detwiler N, Marro D, Schwarber A, Tolaymat T. J. Environ. Manag., 2023, 344: 118443.
[22]

He P J, Chen L Y, Shao L M, Zhang H, Lü F. Water Res., 2019, 159: 38.
[23]

Kuroda M, Isobe A, Uchida K, Tokai T, Kitakado T, Yoshitake M, Miyamoto Y, Mukai T, Imai K, Shimizu K, Yagi M, Mituhasi T, Habano A. Sci. Total Environ., 2024, 925: 171421.
[24]

Araújo M C B, Costa M F, Silva-Cavalcanti J S, Duarte A C, Reis V, Rocha-Santos T A, da Costa J P, Girão V. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 2022, 29(32): 48926.
[25]

Feld L, da Silva V H, Strand J. Mar. Pollut. Bull., 2022, 180: 113774.
[26]

Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People's Republic of China. 2021 Report on the Status of China's Marine Ecological Environment, (2022-05-27). [2024-07-01]. https://www.mee.gov.cn/hjzl/sthjzk/jagb/202205/P020220527579939593049.pdf.
[27]

Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People's Republic of China. Action Plan for Plastic Pollution Control of the 14th Five-Year Plan, (2021-09-08). [2024-07-01]. https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2021-09/16/content_5637606.htm.
[28]

Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People's Republic of China. Coastal City Marine Debris Cleanup Action Plan, (2024-06-11). [2024-07-01]. https://www.gov.cn/lianbo/bumen/202406/content_6956621.htm.
[29]

Singh A, Mishra B K. J. Clean. Prod., 2023, 427: 139082.
[30]

Galafassi S, Nizzetto L, Volta P. Sci. Total Environ., 2019, 693: 133499.
[31]

Xu C Y, Zhang B B, Gu C J, Shen C S, Yin S S, Aamir M, Li F. J. Hazard. Mater., 2020, 400: 123228.
[32]

Su Y, Yang C Q, Wang S F, Li H M, Wu Y Y, Xing B S, Ji R. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2024, 58(24): 10764.
[33]

Su Y, Wang B, Tong X, Peng S C, Liu S J, Xing B S, Ji R. J. Environ. Sci., 2024, 136: 161.
[34]

Su Y, Hu X, Tang H J, Lu K, Li H M, Liu S J, Xing B S, Ji R. Nat. Nanotechnol., 2022, 17(1): 76.
[35]

Su Y, Yang C Q, Peng Y, Yang C, Wang Y H, Wang Y, Yan F, Xing B S, Ji R. Water Res., 2024, 258: 121758.
[36]

Hernandez L M, Xu E G, Larsson H C E, Tahara R, Maisuria V B, Tufenkji N. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2019, 53(21): 12300.
[37]

Li D Z, Shi Y H, Yang L M, Xiao L W, Kehoe D K, Gun’ko Y K, Boland J J, Wang J J. Nat. Food, 2020, 1(11): 746.
[38]

Hernandez E, Nowack B, Mitrano D M. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2017, 51(12): 7036.
[39]

Reddy A S, Nair A T. Environ. Technol. Innov., 2022, 28: 102815.
[40]

GodvinSharmila V, Shanmugavel S P, Tyagi V K, Rajesh Banu J. J. Environ. Manag., 2023, 343: 118240.
[41]

Tan X J, Wang L. China Water & Wastewater, 2022, 14: 1.
[42]

(谭学军, 王磊. 中国给水排水, 2022, 14: 1.).
[43]

Luo Z X, Zhou X Y, Su Y, Wang H M, Yu R L, Zhou S F, Xu E G, Xing B S. Sci. Total Environ., 2021, 795: 148902.
[44]

Huang Q J, Cheng Z W, Yang C F, Wang H, Zhu N W, Cao X D, Lou Z Y. Water Res., 2022, 223: 119035.
[45]

Zhang Y, Peng Y W, Peng C, Wang P, Lu Y, He X S, Wang L. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2021, 55(20): 13802.
[46]

Wright R J, Bosch R, Gibson M I, Christie-Oleza J A. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2020, 54(4): 2244.
[47]

Liu P, Shi Y Q, Wu X W, Wang H Y, Huang H, Guo X T, Gao S X. Sci. Total Environ., 2021, 768: 144969.
[48]

Huang Q J, Yang C F, Cheng Z W, Wang H, Mojiri A, Zhu N W, Qian X Y, Shen Y L, Wu S L, Lou Z Y. Water Res., 2023, 242: 120162.
[49]

Zhang G M, Liu K L, Lv L Y, Gao W F, Li W G, Ren Z J, Yan W Y, Wang P F, Liu X Y, Sun L. Sci. Total Environ., 2023, 857: 159535.
[50]

Li N Y, Han Z Y, Guo N F, Zhou Z Q, Liu Y, Tang Q G. J. Hazard. Mater., 2022, 438: 129452.
[51]

Lin X X, Zhang S S, Yang S, Zhang R, Shi X Y, Song L Y. J. Hazard. Mater., 2023, 457: 131676.
[52]

Yu F, Wu Z J, Wang J Y, Li Y Y, Chu R D, Pei Y Z, Ma J. Environ. Pollut., 2022, 306: 119366.
[53]

Lou F F, Wang J, Sima J Y, Lei J H, Huang Q X. J. Hazard. Mater., 2023, 459: 132098.
[54]

Sholokhova A, Denafas G, Ceponkus J, Omelianenko T. Sustainability, 2023, 15(6): 5017.
[55]

Praagh M V, Liebmann B. 2019. DOI:10.6027/TN2018-557.
[56]

Shen M C, Xiong W P, Song B, Zhou C Y, Almatrafi E, Zeng G M, Zhang Y X. Chemosphere, 2022, 305: 135325.
[57]

Xu Z Q, Sui Q, Li A M, Sun M, Zhang L, Lyu S G, Zhao W T. Sci. Total Environ., 2020, 733: 139218.
[58]

Mohammadi A, Malakootian M, Dobaradaran S, Hashemi M, Jaafarzadeh N. Sci. Total Environ., 2022, 842: 156838.
[59]

Trihadiningrum Y, Wilujeng S A, Tafaqury R, Radita D R, Radityaningrum A D. Sci. Total Environ., 2023, 874: 162207.
[60]

Chamanee G, Sewwandi M, Wijesekara H, Vithanage M. Environ. Pollut., 2024, 350: 123944.
[61]

Wang P L, Wu D, You X X, Li W Y, Xie B. Environ. Pollut., 2019, 255: 113222.
[62]

He P J, Huang J H, Yu Z F, Xu X, Raga R, Lü F. Chemosphere, 2021, 266: 129182.
[63]

Tang Y Q, Liu Y G, Chen Y, Zhang W, Zhao J M, He S Y, Yang C P, Zhang T, Tang C F, Zhang C, Yang Z S. Sci. Total Environ., 2021, 766: 142572.
[64]

Song X C, Zhuang W, Cui H Z, Liu M, Gao T, Li A, Gao Z H. Sci. Total Environ., 2022, 838: 156068.
[65]

Wang J, Liu X H, Liu G N, Zhang Z X, Wu H, Cui B S, Bai J H, Zhang W. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf., 2019, 173: 331.
[66]

Ding L, Mao R F, Ma S R, Guo X T, Zhu L Y. Water Res., 2020, 174: 115634.
[67]

Fu L N, Li J, Wang G Y, Luan Y N, Dai W. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf., 2021, 217: 112207.
[68]

Pan T, Liu H, Jiang M Y, Li J, Liu W Y, Jiao Q X, Zhang T T. Chemosphere, 2023, 311: 136938.
[69]

Cortés-Arriagada D, Miranda-Rojas S, Camarada M B, Ortega D E, Alarcón-Palacio V B. Sci. Total Environ., 2023, 861: 160632.
[70]

Liu W Y, Pan T, Liu H, Jiang M Y, Zhang T T. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2022, 17(4): 41.
[71]

Fernandes E M S, de Souza A G, da Silva Barbosa R F, dos Santos Rosa D. J. Polym. Environ., 2022, 30(12): 5202.
[72]

Ghorbaninejad Fard Shirazi M M, Shekoohiyan S, Moussavi G, Heidari M. Environ. Pollut., 2023, 324: 121368.
[73]

Guo S L, Wu Z X, Li X H, Shen D S, Shentu J L, Lu L, Qi S Q, Zhu M, Long Y Y. Sci. Total Environ., 2024, 906: 167662.
[74]

Chen L Y, Han L F, Feng Y F, He J H, Xing B S. J. Hazard. Mater., 2022, 438: 129555.
[75]

Hüffer T, Metzelder F, Sigmund G, Slawek S, Schmidt T C, Hofmann T. Sci. Total Environ., 2019, 657: 242.
[76]

Liu J, Zhang T, Tian L L, Liu X L, Qi Z C, Ma Y N, Ji R, Chen W. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2019, 53(10): 5805.
[77]

Winkler A S, Cherubini A, Rusconi F, Santo N, Madaschi L, Pistoni C, Moschetti G, Sarnicola M L, Crosti M, Rosso L, Tremolada P, Lazzari L, Bacchetta R. Environ. Int., 2022, 163: 107200.
[78]

Zhi L Y, Li Z, Su Z L, Wang J. Trac Trends Anal. Chem., 2024, 177: 117817.
[79]

Yin K, Wang Y, Zhao H J, Wang D X, Guo M H, Mu M Y, Liu Y C, Nie X P, Li B Y, Li J Y, Xing M W. Sci. Total Environ., 2021, 774: 145758.
[80]

Marfella R, Prattichizzo F, Sardu C, Fulgenzi G, Graciotti L, Spadoni T, D’Onofrio N, Scisciola L, La Grotta R, Frigé C, Pellegrini V, Municinò M, Siniscalchi M, Spinetti F, Vigliotti G, Vecchione C, Carrizzo A, Accarino G, Squillante A, Spaziano G, Mirra D, Esposito R, Altieri S, Falco G, Fenti A, Galoppo S, Canzano S, Sasso F C, Matacchione G, Olivieri F, Ferraraccio F, Panarese I, Paolisso P, Barbato E, Lubritto C, Balestrieri M L, Mauro C, Caballero A E, Rajagopalan S, Ceriello A, D’Agostino B, Iovino P, Paolisso G. N Engl J. Med., 2024, 390(10): 900.
[81]

Manikanda Bharath K, Natesan U, Vaikunth R, Praveen Kumar R, Ruthra R, Srinivasalu S. Chemosphere, 2021, 277: 130263.
[82]

Priya K L, Iqbal S, Archana A R, Gopika B, Mina M C, Haddout S, M Madhu A. J. Environ. Manag., 2023, 348: 119224.
[83]

Nurhasanah, Cordova M R, Riani E. Mar. Pollut. Bull., 2021, 163: 111986.
[84]

Ju H, Yang X M, Osman R, Geissen V. Environ. Pollut., 2023, 316: 120483.
[85]

Huang J S, Chen H, Zheng Y L, Yang Y C, Zhang Y, Gao B. Chem. Eng. J., 2021, 425: 131870.
[86]

Zhu D, Bi Q F, Xiang Q, Chen Q L, Christie P, Ke X, Wu L H, Zhu Y G. Environ. Pollut., 2018, 235: 150.
[87]

Baihetiyaer B, Jiang N, Li X X, Song J, Wang J, Fan X T, Zuo Y J, Yin X Q. Environ. Pollut., 2023, 337: 122547.
[88]

Castro-Castellon A T, Horton A A, Hughes J M R, Rampley C, Jeffers E S, Bussi G, Whitehead P. Sci. Total Environ., 2022, 816: 151638.
[89]

Enyoh C E, Wang Q Y, Ovuoraye P E, Maduka T O. Chemosphere, 2022, 308: 136342.
[90]

Loppi S, Roblin B, Paoli L C, Aherne J. Sci. Rep., 2021, 11: 4564.
[91]

Lin W Q, Guo Z C. Sichuan Environ., 2020, 39(3): 115.
[92]

(林文琪, 郭子成. 四川环境, 2020, 39(3): 115.).
[93]

Yin L S, Wen X F, Huang D L, Zeng G M, Deng R, Liu R Y, Zhou Z Y, Tao J X, Xiao R H, Pan H M. Sci. Total Environ., 2021, 790: 148200.
[94]

Li L Z, Luo Y M, Li R J, Zhou Q, Peijnenburg W J G M, Yin N, Yang J, Tu C, Zhang Y C. Nat. Sustain., 2020, 3(11): 929.
[95]

Zhang C, Yue N, Li X H, Shao H, Wang J, An L H, Jin F. J. Hazard. Mater., 2023, 449: 131019.
[96]

Oliveri Conti G, Ferrante M, Banni M, Favara C, Nicolosi I, Cristaldi A, Fiore M, Zuccarello P. Environ. Res., 2020, 187: 109677.
[97]

Ren X N, Han Y, Zhao H R, Zhang Z Q, Tsui T H, Wang Q. Water Res., 2023, 233: 119786.
[98]

Yan Z H, Liu Y F, Zhang T, Zhang F M, Ren H Q, Zhang Y. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2022, 56(1): 414.
[99]

Zeng G D, Li J Y, Wang Y L, Su J R, Lu Z B, Zhang F, Ding W J. Environ. Pollut., 2024, 345: 123473.
[100]

Liu Y L, Prikler B, Bordós G, Lorenz C, Vollertsen J. Sci. Total Environ., 2023, 902: 166513.
[101]

Wang X J, Dai Y R, Li Y, Yin L F. Chemosphere, 2024, 346: 140636.
[102]

Li S, Yang Y L, Zheng H S, Zheng Y J, Jing T, Ma J, Nan J, Leong Y K, Chang J S. Chemosphere, 2022, 297: 134214.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China(42177377)

National Natural Science Foundation of China(42477413)

PDF (182176KB)

469

Accesses

0

Citation

Detail
Sections
Recommended

/

〈 〉

Address of Editorial Office: No. 33 Beisihuan Xilu, Zhongguancun , Beijing 100190, China
Tel: +86 10 8262 7757
Fax: +86 10 8262 7757
E-mail: progchem@mail.las.ac.cn
http://www.progchem.ac.cn
    • 　
    Copyright © Editorial Office of Progress in Chemistry