10个公园，12个休闲场所，1个城市森林土壤中微塑料的振荡提取

公园和娱乐区是城市遗址中塑料碎片的洼地：荷兰阿姆斯特丹市的轻密度微塑料案例Parks and Recreational Areas as Sinks of Plastic Debris in Urban Sites The Case of Light-Density Microplastics in the City of Amsterdam, The Netherlands使用格哈特振荡器120rpm振荡environments 2 of 11Environments 2022,9,5 Article 公园和娱乐区是城市遗址中塑料碎片的洼地：荷兰阿姆斯特丹市的轻密度微塑料案例 Parks and Recreational Areas as Sinks of Plastic Debris in Urban Sites: The Case of Light-Density Microplastics in the City of Amsterdam, The Netherlands Quirine M. Cohen 1, Mae Glaese 1.2, Ke Meng1, Violette Geissenl and Esperanza Huerta-Lwanga 1,3,* Soi l Physics and Land Management Degradation Group, Wageningen Universi t y & Research,6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands; cohenquirine@gmail.com (Q.M.C.);l .glaese@ucr.nl (M.G.); ke.meng@wur.nl (K.M.); violette.geissen@wur.nl (V.G.) 2 Department of Environmental and Earth Science, University College Roosevelt, 4331 CB Middelburg, The Netherlands 3 Departamento de Agricultura, Sociedad y Ambiente, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR), Campeche 24500, Mexico Correspondence: esperanza.huertalwanga@wur.nl Citation: Cohen,Q.M.; Glaese,M.; Meng, K.; Geissen, V.;Huerta-Lwanga, E. Parks and Recreational Areas as Sinks of Plastic Debris in Urban Sites :The Case of Light-Density Microplastics in the City of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Environments 2022,9,5. https:// doi.org/10.3390/env i ronments9010005 Academic Editors: Teresa A. P. Rocha-Santos and Joana C. Prata Received: 30 November 2021 Accepted: 28 December 2021 Published: 30 December 2021 Publisher's Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdict i onal claims in published maps and inst i tutional af f il -iations. Copyright: @ 2021 by the authors. L i censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distr i buted under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY ) l icense (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) Abstract: Soils of parks and recreational areas are potential sinks o f microplastics because they are un-der multifunctiona l use. The aims of this research were to quantify and determine the types and abun-dance of light-density microplastics in one of the most cosmopolitan cities of the world: Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Therefore, potential differences between the city districts were explored through the assessment of l ight-density microplastics'concentrations i n soils together wi t h the soil properties. Microplastics were extracted from 74 soi l samples. Predictions of microplastic concentrations and soil characteristics were made for the entire city by using ordinary kriging; 97% of t he samples contained microplastic particles (MPPs), and on average, there were 4825.31 ±6513.85 MPP/kg soil. A total of 21 hotspot samples were identified, and all of t hem contained LDPE, which represented 40.82% of the plastic types, in addition to 35.06% PAC and 15.58% natural polyamide. Other types of plastics were PP (0.19%), PS (1.30%), bioplastic (0.19%), PA (0.37%), PU (0.56), PVC (0.19%), and unidentified plastics (0.19%). There were no significant differences in MPP concentration between city districts. Our results showed that MPPs are abundant in urban soils, which represents a high risk for soil life. Further studies are required for identifying the sources o f this pollution Keywords: microplastics; urban areas; parks 1. Introduction I t i s predicted that the current worldwide production of plastic wi ll double i n the coming 20 years, extending the post-consumer waste [1]. When not collected and processed correctly, it is evident that plastic debris will end up i n the environment [2]. Microplastic pollution has been researched extensively in the marine environment [3] and to some degree in the terrestria l environment [4-6]. However, research on microplastic pollution in an urban environment has been lacking [7]. This i s remarkable, since cities can contain plastic debris in their soil itself, and they be a source for plastic debris outside the urban areas [6,8]. Since most plastic l itter comes from land, it is highly l ikely that these plastics have f irst interacted with the terrestria l ecosystem [9]. Microplastics are small particles of <5 mm that are i nsoluble in water, non-degradable, and have chemica l properties that influence their availability to organisms [10]. Studies have shown that microplastic pollution is related to its degradation rate, which is generally slow or does not even occur [4,11]. These part i cles can be transported through the soi l both horizontally and vertically through anthropogenic activities or naturally by either leaching or earthworms [4,12]. Moreover, microplastics can increase mortality rates and decrease reproduction rates, in addition to reducing the growth of earthworms [13]. There are multiple ways that plastic debris can end up in an urban environment. Agricultural prac t ices are suggested to be the main contributor and could be a source of plastic debris in urban soils through atmospheric t ransportation [6,14]. Other sources include release from (1) transportation, which can occur from damaged vehicles or road channelizing devices [7], (2) littering by individuals after using plastic materials [15],(3) deposition after plastic products [16] or synthetic fibres from clothes or houses leach into the atmospheric compartment [17],and, finally, (4) plastic debris entering the terrestrial environment after tourism-related land use. Amsterdam is famous for its eight canals within the city centre, which are part of the UNESCO World Heritage [18], making i t a popular tourist destination. Moreover, tourism is i ncreasing each year due to Amsterdam’s open-minded reputation and marketing efforts from the city itself , which leads to more littering [19]. Another tourism-related l and use is from events, such as festivals. Festivals are typically large public events that last for a short time frame [20]. In The Netherlands,50 million kg of plastic garbage is produced by all festivals each year [21]. Since Amsterdam hosts most of the festivals in The Netherlands (192 in 2018) [21], this could be a likely source. Currently, 862,987 people are living in Amsterdam, t he capital of The Netherlands [22]. In 2018, 3.5 kg plastic garbage was produced per person [23]. Amsterdam l ies next to the North Sea and is surrounded by nature reserves that are part of the UNESCO World Heritage [24]. Due to i ts (culturally valued) geographical location, plastic pollution can have devastating effects on the environment. Even though the terrestrial environment can act as a permanent sink of microplastics, research has been stil l lacking [7]. Some studies analysed microplastics in urban dust [7,25] or urban stormwater retention ponds [26] and scare are those studies developed in urban soi l s [27]. Therefore, this study aims to (1) quantify light-density MPPs in parks and recreational areas in Amsterdam, (2) analyse t he size distribution of MPPs, (3) i nvestigate whether there were differences in MPP concentration and size distribution between parks and recreational areas, neighbourhoods, or city distric t s i n Amsterdam, (4) identify plastic types from hotspot samples, (5) evaluate the chemical and physical soil characteristics and their relationships with MPPs,and, finally, (6) predic t MPP concentrations and chemical and physical soil characteristics for the entire city through a spatial distribution approach. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Study Area and Sample Collection Soil samples were taken from 10 parks, 12 recreational places, and 1 c i ty forest i n the urban area of Amsterdam, t he capital of The Netherlands (Figure 1). Those soils are known as peat soils [28]. Amsterdam is divided into seven c i ty districts: Centrum, Nieuw-West, Noord,Oost, West, Zuid, and Zuidoost. 3 of 11 Agricultural fields and sampling points Amsterdam, The Netherlands Figure 1. Sampling points in parks and recreational areas in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 2.2. Microplastic Extraction Microplastic extraction was based on the method proposed by Zhang [29], modified from [31] (in short, a flotation method based on density difference). First, all samples were air-dried in an oven at 40 °C for 24 h. Samples were gently pressed through a 2 mm sieve that was made from steel to prevent plastic contamination, weighted to 5.00 ± 0.01 g, and put into 50 mL glass tubes to prevent contamination. A total of 40 mL of distilled water was added to the tubes and mixed in a Gerhardt Laboshake shake at 120 rpm for 30 to 40 min instead of 2 h, as proposed by Zhang [29] because the soil samples had less organic matter [32,33] and no hard aggregates. Second, samples were centrifuged at 3000 rpm for ten minutes. After centrifuging, the supernatant was filtered using Whatmann 91 filters with a pore size of <7 mm, which were made from paper to prevent contamination. Samples were topped up until they reached 50 mL again, and the process was repeated three times. Between iterations of filtering, all samples were covered with paper cloth to prevent contamination. Afterwards, the samples were put into an ultrasound machine for two hours to break up any remaining aggregates. The samples were left overnight, covered with paper cloth to prevent contamination, and filtered. The filters were then dried in the oven at 60 °C for 3 h. After drying, the filters were folded shut to prevent contamination and were stored in a dark cupboard until the analyses. 2.3. Microplastic Constatation To recognise microplastics, filter residue was brushed onto a glass plate using a finest red sable (da Vinci) paintbrush (number 5) with weasel hairs to prevent contamination. During constatation, the researcher wore mainly cotton clothes and a cotton coat. Two pictures were taken using a ZEISS Stemi 508 microscope (1:8 zoom) before and after heating for 30 s at 140-150 °C. Microplastics were selected in Photoshop by using changes in shape, colour, or transparency after heating (Figure S1,according to Zhang [29]). Each selection was analysed for the plastic count and size using ImageJ. 2.4. Microplastic Identification To identify the types of microplastics, a random subgroup from t he sampling lo-cations with the highest microplastic concentrations in the soils was assessed. It was decided to analyse a subgroup, since the identification method was highly t ime consuming. Seven sampling locations were analysed in triplicate; the locations were: Westerpark',‘Gerbrandypark',Flevopark',Nelson Mandelapark', and three from the Amsterdamse Bos', hereafter called Amsterdamse Bos 1, Amsterdamse Bos 2,and Amsterdamse Bos 3. Plastic was extracted by following the method explained in Section 2.2. After extraction, the 21 samples were identified using a Laser Direct Infrared Chemical Imaging System (8700 LDIR). After identification, a correlation matrix was made for all of the particles. When the correlation of the absorbance spectra of the plastic type in the sample and ab-sorbance spectra of the plastic type from the LDIR library was above 0.85, the plastic type was considered a match. 2.5. Soi l Characterization by Using Organic Carbon Content, Moisture Content, and pH Soils were characterized by using organic matter content, moisture, and pH; the methods' descriptions are present in the Supplementary Materials. 2.6. Data Analysis A Shapiro-Wilk test was performed to test for data normality, and it showed that the data were not normally distributed (p<0.05). To determine if there were any statistical differences among parks and recreational areas, a Kruskal-Wal l is test was performed . Afterwards, potential differences were identified using a post-hoc Mann-Whitney U test. To differentiate between the sizes of the particles, the particles were divided into four size groups: A: >1 mm, B: 0.50-1 mm, C: 0.25-0.50 mm, and D: <0.25 mm. Correlations between microplastic concentration,OCC, MC, and pH were determined using Spearman tests. All tests were performed in RStudio (Version 1.2.5) using a significance l evel of p <0.05. 2.7. Geostatistical Analysis Geostatistics were used to examine the spatial distribution structures of MPP concen-tration, organic carbon content, moisture content, and pH in soi l s. The main tool for the analyses was the semi-variance function; the semi-variogram (Figures S2-S9) value was calculated using Equation (1). r(h), or the semi-variance value, is half of the expected squared difference between the value of Z at two locations separated by the distance interval h . The spatial structure was best fit by the spherical variogram model. The parameters used are: ● nugget variance: the random variation of the short distance. C sil l : the maximum value of the semi-variogram. range: the separation distance at probable spatial dependence. The variogram was then fitted in R-studio (Version 1.2.5). The nugget-to-sill ratios and variograms can be found in the Supplementary Materials. 3. Results 3.1. Microplastic Particles in Soils by City District Microplastic particles were found in 97% of t he analysed samples. Most particles were found in 'Oost', and the lowest concentrations were found in 'Zuid Oost': 5996±10,658 Microplastic particles were found in 97% of the analysed samples. Most particles were found in ‘Oost’, and the lowest concentrations were found in ‘Zuid Oost’: 5996 ±10,658 and 1198 ± 2879 MPP kg−1, respectively (Tables S1 and S2). There were no significant differences between city districts (p < 0.05, Figure 2). Outliers were present in ‘Amster-damse Bos’ and ‘Zuid Oost’. The hotspot samples had around 78.7 ± 12 microplastics per gram of soil (these particles were identified in 380 ± 95 extracted and studied particles per gram of soil in the assessment with the LDIR). soi l in the assessment with the LDIR). C i ty distric t s Figure 2. Visualization of microplastic concentrations (MPP Kg−1) in soils from parks and recrea-tional areas (n = 74) by city district in Amsterdam. 3.2. Microplastic Size Distribution by City District The size distribution was analysed by city district (Figure 3). The highest significant median was found in ‘Oost’ (0.37 mm), and the lowest was found in ‘Noord’ (0.19 mm). The largest diameter was found in ‘Oost’ (0.40 mm). All city districts showed outliers. The Kruskal–Wallis test showed significant differences between city districts (p < 0.05). Environments 2021, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 11 Figure 3. Size distribution (diameter in mm) of microplastic particles (n = 1748) in soils from parks F a i n g d u r r e e c 3r .e aStiizoen dail satrriebaust (ino n= (7d4i)a, mwehteicr hi nw merem )a nofa lmysiecrdo bplya csitticy pdiasrttriicclte si n( nA =m 1s7t4er8)d ainm s. oSiilsg nfirfoicma npta drikfs-faenrde nrceecsr ebaettiowneael na rcietays d(ins t=r i7ct4s) ,( p w r bd a> mc). .Significant dif- ferences between city districts (p < 0.05) are indicated by lowercase letters (a > b > c). 3.3. Microplastic Types 3.3. Microplastic Types Each sample contained low-density polyethylene (LDPE) (40.82%), natural polyam- Each sample contained low-density polyethylene (LDPE) (40.82%), natural polyam-ide(15.58%),pro-oxidant-additive-containing(PAC)plastics(36.36%),polypropylene ide pro-oxidant-additive-containing(PAC)plastics(36.36%),polypropylene(PP, 0.19%), polystyrene (PS, 1.30%), bioplastic (0.19%), polyamide (PA, 0.37%), polyure-(PP, 0.19%), polystyrene (PS, 1.30%), bioplastic (0.19%), polyamide (PA, 0.37%), polyure-thane (PU, 0.56%), polyvinyl chloride (PVC, 0.19%), and unidentified plastics (3.71%). The thane (PU, 0.56%), polyvinyl chloride (PVC, 0.19%), and unidentified plastics (3.71%). The plastic type with the highest concentration was LDPE, which was found in the Amster-plastic type with the highest concentration was LDPE, which was found in the Amster-damse Bos 3 with 8800 particles/kg soil (Figure 4). The shapes and colours of the micro-damse Bos 3 with 8800 particles/kg soil (Figure 4). The shapes and colours of the micro-plastics were not characterised. plastics were not characterised. Location Figure 4. Plastic types in soils from parks and recreational areas that were analysed by city district i F n i g A ur m e s t 4e . rPdlaasmti.c types in soils from parks and recreational areas that were analysed by city district in Amsterdam. 3.4. Soil Microplastics, Organic Carbon Content, Moisture Content, and pH Prediction in the Soils of Amsterdam 3.4. Soil Microplastics, Organic Carbon Content, Moisture Content, and pH Prediction in the Soils The microplastic concentration was predicted for the entire city using a spherical model in the semi-variogram (Supplementary data). Figure 5 shows that the soils, on av-erage, contained 5000 MPP kg−1 and were moderately spatially dependent, which could be concluded from the nugget-to-sill ratio (Supplementary data). A hotspot was observed in the western part of the city. 18 -16 F 14 F 12 -10 (a ) Microplastics Kg-soil i n Amsterdam (b) Organic carbon content [%] in Amsterdam F 7 F 6 -5 -4 -3 -0 (c) Moisture content [%] in Amsterdam (d) pH i n Amsterdam Figure 5. Prediction maps of (a ) microplastic concentration (MPP/kg), (b ) organic carbon content (%), (c ) moisture content (%), and (d ) pH in soils from parks and recreational areas of Amsterdam. Organic carbon analyses showed that the highest median was found in the city dis-trict ‘Oost’ (8.09%), and the lowest was found in ‘Noord’ (2.35%). Outliers were found in ‘Amsterdamse Bos’, ‘Oost’, and ‘Zuid Oost’. There were no significant differences be-tween city districts. Consequently, the OC content was plotted for the entire city of Am-sterdam (Figure 5b) using a spherical model. The nugget-to-sill ratio showed that the OC content was moderately to strongly spatially dependent. The mean OC content was 5.95%, and a higher OC content was roughly expected in the southern part of ‘Zuid Oost’, which is coloured yellow in the figure (Figure 5c). An insignificant (p < 0.05) negative correlation with microplastic concentration was found. The city district with the highest moisture content was ‘Noord’ (20.18%), and the lowest was ‘West’ (4.71%). A significant difference (p < 0.05) between city districts was observed. Outliers were only observed in ‘Amsterdamse Bos’. The mean moisture content was 18.89% for the entire city, and a higher moisture content was expected in the southern part of ‘Zuid Oost’ and the ‘Amsterdamse Bos’, which are coloured purple in the figure was observed . The semi-variogram of the moisture content, which was plotted using a spherical model , showed that the data were moderately spatially dependent. The highest median pH was found in the city district 'Centrum' (7.28). The lowest median pH was found i n Noord'(6.89). Outliers were found in 'Amsterdamse Bos',Nieuw West', West, and 'Zuid Oost'. The pH showed no significant differences between city districts. The average pH was 6.96 and did not change much by city district (Figure 5d). The semi-variogram was plotted using a spher i cal model and showed that the data were moderately spatially dependent. The correlation was slightly positive, but insignificant. 4. Discussion 4.1. Microplastic Concentration in City Districts I t can be stated that MPPs are abundant in the soils of Amsterdam. In this study,97% of the samples contained MPPs, with a mean of 4825.31±6513.85 MPP/kg soil. The study by Huerta Lwanga [34] was the most similar in terms of methodology, where soil samples were analysed for microplastics in home gardens with a similar extraction method. In that research, 870 ±1900 MPPs/kg were found in soil. These results are much lower than those calculated in this study. It is known that a denser population results in more plastic waste and l i tter [7]. Unfortunately, there are no exact data available on the amount of litter in Amsterdam. Nevertheless, i t is estimated that the amount of li t ter in The Netherlands l ies between 50 and 275 million kg per year. This includes data on litter that i s cleaned by street cleaners [35]. Moreover, i t is estimated that in Europe,annually, between 1270 and 2130 tonnes of microplastics/million inhabitants are unloaded in urban environments [6]. In Amsterdam, this would mean that each year, between 1043 and 1750 tonnes of microplastics are released into the environment. Other potential sources of microplastics in urban environments are tire abrasion, construction, atmospheric dispersion, and washing of synthetic clothing [7]. Generally, quantitative research on potential sources of microplastics in the environment is lacking. Studies are restricted by the complex sources, incomplete data on transport and fate i n the general environment, and high geographical variability [36]. The highest microplastic concentration was found in Nieuw-West’, and the lowest was found in 'Zuidoost'. The highest median, however, was found in 'Oost' (5996 ±10,658MPP/kg). Corresponding to the results in the parks and neighbourhoods,'Oost’ is crossed by a railway and a highway. This could explain the higher concentration of MPP/kg in the soil. Nevertheless, the differences between city districts were i nsignificant; it is possible that this was due to the low number of sampling locations per city district. As mentioned before, it was proposed that a higher population density would result in a higher MPP/kg concentration. This does not correspond to our data, as 'Oost'does not have the highest number of residents. 4.2. Size Distribution of Microplastic Particles in Amsterdam Most particles (on average, 47 ±22%) had a diameter <0.25 mm. Plastic particles become so small due to several factors, such as embrittlement, photo-oxidation, abrasion, or fragmentation by UV light [37]. The distribution of the diameter of each MPP was categorized per city district. The largest median was discovered in 'Centrum’ (0.48 mm). The environmental risk that this represents is related to the i ngestion of MPPs by soil f auna. According to Huerta Lwanga [38], earthworms are able to bioturbate particles up to a size of 0.50-1 mm; nevertheless, it is mostly particles smaller than 0.25 mm that are found in their guts. When microplastics end up in earthworms’ guts, they can result in weight loss, lower growth rates, and even mortality, thus decreasing soil quality [38]. Furthermore, when burrows created by earthworms become denser, organic matter concentrates in the burrow walls, which, in turn, can increase the inclination toward sorp-tion of contaminants [38]. Moreover, the bioturbation of microplastics in earthworms can result in accumulation in the food chain, thus posing a threat for human health. Microplas-tics haven been found in several types of terrestrial animals [39], such as chickens [34]. Finally, i t is suggested Pin that terrestrial organisms and soil microbial communities may ad- vance the degradation of plast i cs into microplastic s or even nanoplastics. This can, in turn, stimulate the soil as a long-term sink of micro- and nanoplastics [14]. 4.3. Microplastic Types The types of microplastics were determined in seven sampling points from the areas with the highest concentrations of MPPs in soils. Each sample contained LDPE, natural polyamide, and PAC. LDPE is mostly related to packaging and is frequently used to produce film. Natural polyamide is a form of bioplastic, which is plastic derived from biomass and is most often produced by transforming cellulose into products that have thermoplastic properties, such as f ilms and f ibres [40]. Other natural polymers that can be used to produce natural polyamide are starch, polyhydroxyalkaboates (PHAs), or lignin [40]. PAC plastics are conventional fossil-based polymers containing additives to enhance polymer degradation when exposed to l ight and/or heat [41]. In this research, PAC plastic is LDPE with additives, which is often produced in the market as oxodegradable plastic bags or other single-use plastics. PE, PP, PVC, PET, PS, and PA are all considered thermoplastics, which melt when heated and harden when cooled [42]. PP and PE are mostly used in packaging, but are used in all sectors of primary plastic production worldwide [42]. PVC is mostly used in the construction sector, and is often used for pipes, hoses, and window and door frames [42], whereas PET is almost only used in packaging, mostly for bottles [43]. PUR is an example of a thermoset and is mostly used for foam products, such as insulation material. PS is used for food packaging, plastic cups, and cutlery [43]. It is noticeable that most of the recovered plastic types are used in either the packaging or construction industry. This coincides with findings by Geyer [42], where it was found that in 2017, the global primary plastic production was mostly made up by packaging (36%), followed by construction (16%). This could mean that most of the plastics recovered in the parks and recreational areas are related to littering or construction work 4.4. Microplastics and Soil Organic Matter, pH, and Moisture It was a challenge to try to understand i f microplastics could be related to soil proper-ties. The idea arose from t rying to infer that soils t hat are rich in organic matter are those that have been under a continuous supply of f ertilisers or composts (composts are also known to vehicles of microplastics [44]). Consequently, the following hypothesis can be addressed: In soils where compost was added intensively, will there also be high concen-trations of microplas t ics? We cannot know, as in the present study, i t was not possible to elucidate this from the soil data. It is necessary to study the land use and the constant application of composts, which was outside of the scope of this study. Further studies are needed to understand the spatial distribution of microplastics and its relation with soils that are rich in organic matter in the soils of parks and recreational areas in Amsterdam. 5. Conclusions I t can be concluded t hat microplastic par t icles are abundant in the soils of Amsterdam. Although there were no significant differences between city districts, understanding the differences could aid i n policy making in order to minimize the negative environmental effects of microplastic pollution. A total of 53% of all particles were smaller than 0.25 mm, thus posing a threat to soil quality. Most plastic types that were recovered were related to the packaging and construc t ion sector, indicating that the main sources of microplastics in the soi l could be from littering and construction work. The relationship of microplastics with several soil properties is still insufficiently understood, but it is clear that the spatial distribution is determined by anthropogenic factors. of MPP/Kg in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Figure S4: Variogram organic carbon content in Amsterdam, The Netherlands (before fitting). Figure S5: Fitted variogram organic carbon con-tent in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Figure S6: Variogram moisture content in Amsterdam, The Netherlands (before fitting). Figure S7: Fitted variogram of moisture content in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Figure S8: Variogram of pH i n Amsterdam, The Netherlands (before f itting). Figure S9:Fitted variogram of pH in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Table S1: Statistical data of microplastic particles per kg per city district in Amsterdam. No significant di f ferences between city districts were observed af t er a Kruskal-Wallis test. Table S2: Microplastic particles [MPP/Kg] per park or recreational area in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, E.H.-L. and Q.M.C.; methodology, Q.M.C., K.M. and M.G.; validation, all authors participated; formal analysis, Q.M.C. and M.G.; investigation, Q.M.C., M.G. and E.H.-L.; resources,E.H.-L. and V.G.; data curation, Q.M.C.; writing-original draft preparation, Q.M.C . and E.H.-L.; writing-review and edit i ng,Q.M.C., E.H.-L . and V.G.; visualization, Q.M.C. and E.H.-L.; supervision, E.H.-L.; project administration, E.H.-L.; funding acquisition, V.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Acknowledgments: We would like to acknowledge Ir. Gerard Heuvelink and Cynthia van Leeuwen for their advice on geostatistics. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References 1. Lebreton, L.; Andrady, A. Future scenarios of globa l plastic waste generation and disposal. Palgrave Commun. 2019,5,1-11.[CrossRef ] Ril l ig, M.C. Microplas t ic in terrestrial ecosystems and the soil? Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012,46,6453-6454. [CrossRef ] 2 3 Foley, C.J; Feiner, Z.S.; Malinich, T.D.; Hook, T.O. A meta-analysis of the effects of exposure to microplastics on fish and aquatic invertebrates. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 631-632,550-559.[CrossRef ] 4 Blasing, M.; Amelung, W. Plastics i n soil: Analytical methods and possible sources. Sci. Total Environ . 2018, 612,422-435.[CrossRef ][PubMed] 9. Machado, A.A.d.S.; Kloas, W.; Zar f l, C.; Hempel, S.; Rillig, M.C. Microplastics as an emerging threat to terrestrial ecosystems. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2018,24,1405-1416. [CrossRef ] [PubMed ] 10. Zhang,S.; Yang, X.; Gertsen, H.; Peters, P.; Salanki , T .; Geissen, V. A simple method for t he extraction and identification of light density microplastics from soil. Sc i. Total Environ. 2018, 616-617,1056-1065. [CrossRef ] 11. Restrepo-Florez, J.M.; Bassi, A.; Thompson, M.R. Microbial degradation and deterioration of polyethylene-A review. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2014,88,83-90.[CrossRef ] Rillig, M.C.; Ziersch, L.; Hempel, S. Microplastic transport in soil by earthworms. Sci . Rep. 2017, 7, 1-6. Huerta Lwanga, E.; Gertsen, H.; Gooren, H.; Peters, P.; Salanki, T.; Ploeg, M.v.d.; Besseling, E.; Koelmans, A.A.; Geissen, V. Microplastics in the Terrestrial Ecosystem: Implications for Lumbricus terrestris (Oligochaeta, Lumbricidae). Environ. Sci. Technol .2016,50,2685-2691. [CrossRef] [PubMed ] 14. Hurley, R.R.; Nizzetto, L. Fate and occurence of micro (nano) plastics in soils: Knowledge gaps and possible risks. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 2018, 1,6-11. [CrossRef ] 15. Eriksen, M.; Mason, S.; Wilson, S.; Box, C.; Zellers, A.; Edwards, W.;Farley, H.; Amato, S. Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2013,77,177-182. [CrossRef ] 16. T eil, M.J .; Blanchard , M.; Chevreuil, M. Atmospheric fate of phthalate esters in an urban area (Paris-France). Sci. Total Environ.2006,354,212-223. [CrossRef] [PubMed ] 17. Dris , R.; Gasperi,J;Saad , M.; Mirande, C.; Tassin, B. Synthetic fibers in atmospheric fallout: A source of microplastics in the environment? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016,104,290-293.[CrossRef ] 18. Zukin, S. The social production of urban cultura l heritage: Identity and ecosystem on an Amsterdam shopping street. City Cult. Soc. 2012, 3,281-291.[CrossRef ] 19. Gerritsma, R. Overcrowded Amsterdam: Striving for a balance between trade, tolerance and tourism. In Overtourism: Excesses, Discontents and Measures in Travel and Tourism; Cheer and Marina Novelli : Wallingford, UK, 2019; pp. 125-147. 20. Essonanawe, M.; Fruergaard, T .; Pivnenko, K.; Edjabou, M.; Boldrin, A.; Astrup, T. Challenge of Material Recycling at Large Public Events. I n Proceedings of the 16th International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium,Sardinia, I taly, 2-7 October 2017. 21. Gans, W.D. Handboek voor een Afvalvrij Festival. 2017. Available online: https://www.metabolic.nl/pu blications/handboek-voor-een-afvalv rij -festival/ (accessed on 27 December 2021). 22. Bevolkingsprognoses Amsterdam. Onderzoek, Informatie en Statistiek. Available online: https://data.amsterdam.nl/datasets/Y1Uw9Zh -qZyZAQ/bevolki ngsp ro gn oses-amsterdam/ (accessed on 30 Apri l 2020) 23. Afvalverwerking in Amsterdam. Gemeente Amsterdam,Onderzoek, Informatie en Statistiek. Available online: https://data. amsterdam.nl/datasets/zIe2GGF-IVNxAQ/afvalverwerkin g-i n-amsterdam/ (accessed on 30 April 2020). 24. Folmer, A.; Revier, H.; Cupido, T. Sustainable tourism development and the world heritage status of the Wadden Sea: The case of Terschell i ng. Res. Hosp. Manag. 2016,6,45-50. [CrossRef ] 25. Yukioka, S.; Tanaka, S.; Nabetani, Y.; Suzuki, Y.; Ushijima, T.; Fujii, s.; Takada, H.; Tran, Q.v.; Singh, S. Occurrence and characteristics of microplastics i n surface road dust in Kusatsu (Japan), Da Nang (Vietnam), and Kathmandu (Nepal). Environ. Pollut. 2020,256,113447. [CrossRef ] 26. Liu, F;Olesen, K.B.; Borregaard, A.R.; Vollertsen, J . Microplastics in urban and highway stormwater retention ponds. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 671,992-1000. [CrossRef 27. Zhou, Y.; Liu, X.; Wang, J. Characterization of microplastics and the association of heavy metals with microplastics in suburban soil of central China. Sci . Total Environ. 2019,694, 133798. [CrossRef | 28. Gans, W.D. De Bodem onder Amsterdam: Een Geologische Stadswandeling; Utrecht TNO Geologische Dienst Nederland: Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2011. 29. Zhang, S.; Wang, J; Liu, X.; Qu, F; Wang, X.; Wang, X.; Li, Y.; Sun, Y. Microplastics i n the environment: A review of analytical methods, distribution, and biological effects. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2019,111,62-72. [CrossRef ] Margesin, R.; Schinner, F. Monitoring and Assessing Soil Bioremediation; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2005; Volume 5.33 Waart, S.d.; Jong, W.d.; Tijs, M. Zwerfafo 3al; Milieu Center: Sacramento, CA, USA, 2015. 38. Lwanga, E.H.; T hapa, B.; Yang, X.; Gertsen, H.; Salánki, T .; Geissen, V.; Garbeva, P . Decay of l ow-density polyethylene by bacteria extracted from earthworm’s guts: A potential for soil restoration. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 624,753-757. [CrossRef ] 39. He, D.; Luo, Y.; Lu, S.; Liu, M.; Song, Y.; Lei, L. Microplastics in soils: Analytical methods, pollution characteristics and ecological risks. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2018,109,163-172. [CrossRef ] 40. Kabasci , S. Chapter 4—Biobased plastics. In Plast i c Waste and Recycling; Letcher, T .M., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; pp. 67-96. 41. Havstad,M.R. Chapter 5-Biodegradable plastics. In Plastic Waste and Recycling; Letcher, T.M., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; pp. 97-129. 42. Geyer, R. Chapter 2-Production, use, and fate of synthetic polymers. In Plastic Waste and Recycling; Letcher, T .M., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; pp. 13-32. 43. Letcher, T.M. Chapter 1-Introduction to plastic waste and recycling. In Plastic Waste and Recycling; Letcher,T.M., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020;pp.3-12.