Preventing Microplastic Pollution in Surface Waters: Legal Frameworks and Strategic Actions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Microplastic contamination of surface water is another looming environmental issue driven by fast industrialization, urbanization, and the rampant use of plastics. Microplastics are plastic particles smaller than 5 mm in size, and there are a variety of origins, including broken pieces of plastic waste, synthetic fibers, or industrial effluents. They are one of the pollutants that pose significant threats to aquatic ecosystems and human well‐being because they carry toxic substances, disrupt aquatic food webs, and degrade water quality. This situation led India to formulate a series of regulatory frameworks for the reduction of plastic pollution. Other important policies are the 2016 Plastic Waste Management Rules, with a focus on recyclability and reduction of plastic waste at the source level, and the 2022 countrywide single‐use plastic ban, which targets the spread of high‐volume plastics that lead to microplastic pollution. India also works with international groups like the Global Partnership on Marine Litter and has integrated EPR into its plastic waste management to make it more long‐lasting. In some states, incomplete or nonexistent waste management infrastructure and a lack of specific legislation on microplastics combine to raise concerns about enforcement. This review discusses the source and implications of microplastic contamination in the surface water, evaluates the effectiveness of the current legal regime, and highlights what could be done to strengthen the legislation and reduce microplastic contamination. Strengthened surveillance, state‐of‐the‐art wastewater treatment technology, and awareness programs are essential before such elements can prevent the entry of microplastic contaminants and protect water bodies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".