the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 05 May 2025
Insight into the size-resolved markers and eco-health significance of microplastics from typical sources in northwest China
Abstract. Research on atmospheric microplastics (MPs) from typical sources is limited, constraining the targeted management of pollution. Here, the characteristics and source profiles of eight types of common MPs and three classes of plasticizers (phthalates, benzothiazole and its derivatives, bisphenol A) emitted from plastic burning (PB), fruit bag burning (FB), road traffic (RT), agricultural film (AF) and livestock breeding (LB) sources were determined in PM2.5 and PM10 in the Guanzhong Plain, northern China. PB features high proportions of poly(methyl methacrylate) and 2-hydroxy benzothiazole, with poly(methyl methacrylate) being more abundant in coarse particles (PMcoarse). FB exhibits the higher proportion of di-n-octyl phthalate in PMcoarse than PM2.5. RT shows a distinguishable profile with high abundances of rubber. The abundance of 2-benzothiazolyl-N-morpholinosulfide in PMcoarse was twice that in PM2.5 for RT. Polystyrene is the most abundant MP in AF. LB shows the distinguishing feature of benzothiazoles, especially 2-benzothiazolyl-N-morpholinosulfide and N-cyclohexyl-2-benzothiazolesulfenamide. The eco-health risk assessments reveal combustion-derived MPs (PB and FB) pose the highest ecological risk (Level III). Elevated hazard indices to human health were observed in LB and PB, primarily attributed to bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. Notably, poly(methyl methacrylate, polyethylene terephthalate, polyethylene, bisphenol A and phthalates emerged as key drivers of oxidative stress. This study advances the understanding of atmospheric MPs, offering critical insights for source tracking and risk assessment to mitigate their eco-health effects.
- Preprint
(1509 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(650 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 16 Jun 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1821', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 May 2025
reply
Focusing on atmospheric microplastic pollution in the Guanzhong Plain of China, this paper investigates the characteristics of microplastics and plasticizers emitted from five typical sources of microplastics (plastic burning, fruit bag burning, road traffic, agricultural films, and animal husbandry) and their ecological health impacts, to provide a comprehensive perspective for a deeper understanding of atmospheric microplastic pollution. It is recommended that this manuscript be published with minor revisions.
- Line 152: OBSand CBS all appear for the first time in the abstract, and it is recommended that the abbreviations be labelled on the first occurrence.
- Line 175: note the font of the concentration units.
- Why choose BT, PAE, and BPA as plastic additives for in-depth research in this study?
- Please supplement QAQC in the Methods section for the analysis of DTT, need to know the accuracy and precision of the analysis.
- How is the Source Pathway Decoder model developed? Is there an operation based on some data? Input of basic information? Or is it just a conceptual model? What is the main purpose in this study?
- Lines 210 and 429: It is suggested that there should be consistency throughout the text as to whether P should be capitalized or lower case.
- Line 296: It is recommended that further discussion of the reasons why the results in this study are contrary to other studies.
- Line 438: It is recommended that an outlook for future research be included. For example, there may be a variety of other MPs in the environment that were not detected in this study, which may pose a risk, and it is recommended that the need to expand the range of substances assessed be mentioned in the outlook for future studies to improve the health risk assessment system.
- Line 584: note the format of references.
- You can add this newly reference: The hidden threat of microplastics in the bloodstream. The Innovation Life 3:100130.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1821-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1821', Anonymous Referee #2, 12 May 2025
reply
This study aims to determine the characteristics of microplastics and plasticizers from five typical sources in the Guanzhong Plain of China and their associated ecological and health impacts. The objectives are clear and the comprehensive analysis of atmospheric microplastic supports the significance of conducting this study. However, a few grammatical mistakes and typos are found in the data presentation and elaborations. This manuscript can be accepted for publication after revisions.
General comments
The authors must be aware of using past and present tense. Many places are inconsistent with using the correct tense.
Abstract
Line 19: Add “i.e.,” in front of phthalates
Line 21: Add a comma after (AF).
Line 22: Replace the verb ” features”.
Keyword
Line 36: Spell out ROS to keep consistency.
Specifically comments
Introduction
Line 43: in a range of “ five millimeters to one micrometer”
Line 53: It is recommended to change “results” to “result” because the subject is plural.
Line 59: Define PMs.
Line 77: rephrase the words in the presentation.
Line 81-83: The sentence must be advanced.
Line 84: Add “Most of the” at the start of the sentences.
Line 91: Remove “primary”
Methods
The First and Second paragraphs must be combined with a reasonable logic. It should start with the sample collection place and time.
Line 102: ” The term of “PB burned plastics” is not an appropriate term.
Table 1: The format of the table must be advanced. The alignment of the first line in each block must be on the top.
Line 122” A missing space for ‘at -20°C’.
Figure 1: It is recommended that the error bars should be thickened to increase the clarity.
Section 2.2.
Line 147: More advanced information on the procedures of the GC/MS analysis must be shown (i.e. capillary column used, and MSD setting), not just referring to a reference.
More detailed QC/QA procedures must be given for all analyses.
Section 2.5
Consider renaming it as “Data Analysis and Statistical Method.
Results and Decision
Section 3.1
Line 216: The data must be tabulated instead of shown in a figure. The values are more appropriate to demonstrate the actual circumstances.
The values and percentages must be presented in the form of mean plus standard deviation. Check out all these in all sections.
The uses of PM10 and PMcoarse are confusing Standardize to use one term.
Line 230: The verb “crushed” is inappropriate.
Line 274: What is the meaning of “greenhouses” here?
Line 281-284: The presentation could not be fully understood.
Line 286: ” Relative: is an inappropriate word used here.
Line 297: Is it should be shown in a new Sub-Section? Please verify that.
Figure 5 should use legends in the figure to clarify all symbols rather than explanation in the captions (“sections marked in red”)
The DTT included in this study was reported in volume-base. What is the reason for choosing this DTT to describe the toxicity of PMs?
The future research directions must be advanced. For example, it is recommended to consider coupling the multiple ecological health assessment methods mentioned in this study, measure the weights of different methods, and provide comprehensive evaluation indices.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1821-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 92 | 15 | 5 | 112 | 9 | 1 | 3 |
- HTML: 92
- PDF: 15
- XML: 5
- Total: 112
- Supplement: 9
- BibTeX: 1
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1