While the use of plastic materials has generated huge societal benefits, the ‘plastic age’ comes with downsides: One issue of emerging concern is the accumulation of plastics in the aquatic environment. Here, so-called microplastics (MP), fragments smaller than 5 mm, are of special concern because they can be ingested throughout the food web more readily than larger particles. Focusing on freshwater MP, we briefly review the state of the science to identify gaps of knowledge and deduce research needs. Environmental scientists started investigating marine (micro)plastics in the early 2000s. Today, a wealth of studies demonstrates that MP have ubiquitously permeated the marine ecosystem, including the polar regions and the deep sea. MP ingestion has been documented for an increasing number of marine species. However, to date, only few studies investigate their biological effects. The majority of marine plastics are considered to originate from land-based sources, including surface waters. Although they may be important transport pathways of MP, data from freshwater ecosystems is scarce. So far, only few studies provide evidence for the presence of MP in rivers and lakes. Data on MP uptake by freshwater invertebrates and fish is very limited. While the research on marine MP is more advanced, there are immense gaps of knowledge regarding freshwater MP. Data on their abundance is fragmentary for large and absent for small surface waters. Likewise, relevant sources and the environmental fate remain to be investigated. Data on the biological effects of MP in freshwater species is completely lacking. The accumulation of other freshwater contaminants on MP is of special interest because ingestion might increase the chemical exposure. Again, data is unavailable on this important issue. MP represent freshwater contaminants of emerging concern. However, to assess the environmental risk associated with MP, comprehensive data on their abundance, fate, sources, and biological effects in freshwater ecosystems are needed. Establishing such data critically depends on a collaborative effort by environmental scientists from diverse disciplines (chemistry, hydrology, ecotoxicology, etc.) and, unsurprisingly, on the allocation of sufficient public funding.

The release of plastics into the environment has been identified as an important issue for some time. Recent publications have suggested that the degradation of plastic materials will result in the release of nano-sized plastic particles to the environment. Nanoparticle tracking analysis was applied to characterise the formation of nanoplastics during the degradation of a polystyrene (PS) disposable coffee cup lid. The results clearly show an increase in the formation of nanoplastics over time. After 56 days' exposure the concentration of nanoplastics in the PS sample was 1.26 × 10(8) particles/ml (average particles size 224 nm) compared to 0.41 × 10(8) particles/ml in the control.

Future plastic materials will be very different from those that are used today. The increasing importance of sustainability promotes the development of bio-based and biodegradable polymers, sometimes misleadingly referred to as ‘bioplastics’. Because both terms imply “green” sources and “clean” removal, this paper aims at critically discussing the sometimes-conflicting terminology as well as renewable sources with a special focus on the degradation of these polymers in natural environments. With regard to the former we review innovations in feedstock development (e.g. microalgae and food wastes). In terms of the latter, we highlight the effects that polymer structure, additives, and environmental variables have on plastic biodegradability. We argue that the ‘biodegradable’ end-product does not necessarily degrade once emitted to the environment because chemical additives used to make them fit for purpose will increase the longevity. In the future, this trend may continue as the plastics industry also is expected to be a major user of nanocomposites. Overall, there is a need to assess the performance of polymer innovations in terms of their biodegradability especially under realistic waste management and environmental conditions, to avoid the unwanted release of plastic degradation products in receiving environments.

Plastics are known sources of chemical exposure and few, prominent plastic-associated chemicals, such as bisphenol A and phthalates, have been thoroughly studied. However, a comprehensive characterization of the complex chemical mixtures present in plastics is missing. In this study, we benchmark plastic consumer products, covering eight major polymer types, according to their toxicological and chemical signatures using in vitro bioassays and nontarget high-resolution mass spectrometry. Most (74%) of the 34 plastic extracts contained chemicals triggering at least one end point, including baseline toxicity (62%), oxidative stress (41%), cytotoxicity (32%), estrogenicity (12%), and antiandrogenicity (27%). In total, we detected 1411 features, tentatively identified 260, including monomers, additives, and nonintentionally added substances, and prioritized 27 chemicals. Extracts of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and polyurethane (PUR) induced the highest toxicity, whereas polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and high-density polyethylene (HDPE) caused no or low toxicity. High baseline toxicity was detected in all “bioplastics” made of polylactic acid (PLA). The toxicities of low-density polyethylene (LDPE), polystyrene (PS), and polypropylene (PP) varied. Our study demonstrates that consumer plastics contain compounds that are toxic in vitro but remain largely unidentified. Since the risk of unknown compounds cannot be assessed, this poses a challenge to manufacturers, public health authorities, and researchers alike. However, we also demonstrate that products not inducing toxicity are already on the market.