Jeffrey Lebepe
Nana M. D. Buthelezi
Madira C. Manganyi- Department of Biology and Environmental Sciences, Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University, Pretoria, South Africa
Microplastics (MPs) are becoming a cause for concern in the environment due to their potential to cause adverse effects. Microplastic studies have focused on environments that are in proximity to human activities, with the polar regions, remote wetlands, groundwater, mountain tops, and remote streams, and those draining protected catchments receiving little attention. The review aims to unpack evidence of microplastic occurrence in remote areas, the transport pathways, reasons for limited studies, potential ecological effects, and identify the research gaps, thereof. Microplastics reach remote areas primarily through an atmospheric pathway, whereas flowing rivers and migratory organisms are showing to contribute a considerable amount. Fibres were found to constitute >90% of the morphotypes in remote ecosystems, with particle size below 100 µm being more prominent. Microplastic research in remote areas received little attention due to perceptions that they are not affected by anthropogenic activities. Moreover, inaccessibility and the vague policy posture and implementation are among the reasons hindering microplastic studies in remote areas. Nevertheless, there is a need for microplastic studies in remote areas due to their potential ecological impacts. Effects on the physiology of organisms, nutrient cycling, climate, microbial communities, and sequestration capacity were observed in remote ecosystems. Nevertheless, the morphotype-related impacts and vertical distribution have been poorly studied. Moreover, nothing has been done on the projection and modelling of the cumulative effect of microplastics in remote ecosystems. Given the scale of the problem, international collaborations are also recommended for the sustainable protection of ecosystems and their ecological processes in a global context.
1 Introduction
Microplastics, which are plastic particles <5 mm, have become a cause for concern due to their ubiquity and effects on the environment (Sarkar et al., 2023; Khanam et al., 2025). They have recently been categorised among emerging pollutants due to their notable effect on biota (Shehu et al., 2022). Microplastics are formed as a result of the disintegration of plastic bags, kitchen utensils, building coatings, fishing nets, abrasion of synthetic soles of footwear and tyres, clothes, etc. (Bhardwaj et al., 2024; Sharma et al., 2025). Nevertheless, microplastics were found in areas with limited human footprints such as mountain streams (Wei et al., 2024), caves (Mutshekwa et al., 2025a), remote springs (Nesterovschi et al., 2023), groundwater (Alvarado-Zambrano et al., 2023), Arctic (Collard et al., 2025), Antarctica (Aves et al., 2022), and the deepest and middle of the oceans (Barrett et al., 2020). Despite the transport mechanisms having been fairly studied, it is still to be seen how these mechanisms may assist in building predictive models to enhance understanding of the build-up kinetics and potential threats thereof. Moreover, particle sizes are known to influence microplastic transportation; however, the association with the potential distance to be travelled is worth a comprehensive exploration to allow robust modelling of pollution in remote areas.
There are uncertainties regarding the direct role of anthropogenic activities on microplastic pollution in remote areas. Studies reported atmospheric transport and migratory organisms’ transport as the primary drivers for microplastic pollution in remote areas (Sherlock et al., 2022; Habibi et al., 2024). The density, types, shape, and sizes were reported to be the fundamental drivers influencing the distance for microplastic transport (Hee et al., 2023). Nevertheless, microplastic concentrations in remote areas were found to be very low compared to highly populated areas (Wright et al., 2020; Mutshekwa et al., 2025b). Despite low concentrations, the transport and atmospheric deposition processes are worthy of further investigation, as their vertical and horizontal distributions remain poorly understood. Moreover, their potential to convey other chemical pollutants makes their low concentrations in remote areas a cause for concern.
Remote areas are known for their unique biodiversity supported by unique landscapes and biogeological characteristics (Ficetola et al., 2013). Moreover, remote ecosystems are fragile due to having not experienced human induced impacts, hence, low adaptation capacity. Given the overwhelming evidence of the effect of microplastics in ecosystems, it is imperative to understand the scale of occurrence, their potential impacts and factors influencing their dynamics in remote areas. The present mini review aims to interrogate microplastic occurrence, transport pathways, research-hindering challenges and potential ecological impacts in remote areas. The mini-review further identifies potential research gaps for future studies.
2 Global reach: microplastics in remote environments
Although they were once considered pristine, Earth’s most remote regions were found not to be immune to microplastic pollution. According to Lusher et al. (2015), the presence of microplastics in both surface and sub-surface Arctic waters provided some of the first indisputable proof that pollutants from lower latitudes are reaching this remote region. Studies reported a wide range of microplastics across various environmental matrices from remote ecosystems (Table 1). A high abundance of microplastics was observed in Arctic ice (Bergmann et al., 2016; Peeken et al., 2018; Kanhai et al., 2020; D’Angelo et al., 2023). Peeken et al. (2018) found an abundance of 1.2 × 107 MP/m3, with particle size of ≤50 µm in Arctic ice. Similarly, Emberson-Marl et al. (2023) reported 0.007–0.015 MP/m3 with a size range of 22–65 µm being dominant. In contrast, Kanhai et al. (2020) reported an abundance range of 0–18 MP/m3, with particle size ranging from 0.10–4.66 mm, whereas Courtene-Jones et al. (2022) reported an abundance of 1.62 MP/m3 for 0.02–0.0334 mm particles. Among the particles reported in the Arctic ice, fibre was found to be dominant, contributing between 80% and 97% of the total number of particles (Peeken et al., 2018; Kanhai et al., 2020; Emberson-Marl et al., 2023). According to Ross et al. (2021), the Arctic is a “dead end” for microplastics carried by ocean currents and atmospheric transport.
Table 1. The abundance (MP/L) and sizes (µm unless specified) of microplastics reported in remote areas.
In Antarctica, Aves et al. (2022) confirmed the presence of microplastics for the first time, detecting an average of 29 MP/L across 19 sites near Ross Island. Moreover, Kelly et al. (2020) reported microplastic abundance ranging from 6 to 33.3 MP/L in the Antarctic sea ice. In contrast, Jones-Williams et al. (2025) reported a significantly high abundance of microplastics (73–3099 MP/L), with 98% being ≤50 µm. Moreover, an average atmospheric deposition of 1.7 MP/m2/d was observed in Victoria Land, with fragments being the dominant morphotype (Illuminati et al., 2024). Antarctica’s greater isolation, a surrounding ocean current barrier, and a lack of significant local industry suggest that its microplastic contamination could be linked to long-range atmospheric transport. However, it remains unclear how climate dynamics in the Arctic and Antarctic regions influence microplastic residence time, movements, and routes to endpoints. Moreover, the effect mechanisms of microplastics on the melting dynamics of ice are still worth further exploration.
Despite remote ice, microplastics were also reported in remote mountains, their rivers, and high-altitude alpine lakes. Wang et al. (2025) reported a considerable abundance of microplastics in water, soil, and atmosphere at the Mt. Everest (Table 1). Allen et al. (2019) reported a daily average of 249 fragments, 73 films, and 44 fibres per square meter in a remote, pristine mountain catchment in the French Pyrenees. Velasco et al. (2020) reported significant concentrations of microplastic fibres in the water column (2.6 MP/L) and sediments (40 MP/kg) in Lake Sassolo. However, Pastorino et al. (2021) showed the absence of microplastics <10 µm in the water and sediment at the mountain Dimon Lake, whereas the snow exhibited a mean of 0.11 MP/L. Similarly, Napper et al. (2020) reported an average of 30 MP/L in snow and 1 MP/L in the water at Mt. Everest. Emphasised that atmospheric transport has been identified as a critical pathway, carrying microplastics to high-altitude mountain peaks like Mount Everest, where they have been detected in snow and stream water, whereas large quantities of plastic debris and microplastics were observed at uninhabited islands such as Henderson Island and the Xisha Islands (Lavers and Bond, 2017; Wei et al., 2025). These findings highlight that no corner of the planet is truly safe from microplastic pollution, emphasising its status as a global environmental crisis. Despite considerable evidence of microplastic occurrence in remote mountain and river ecosystems, the data are still inadequate to model the roles of different receptors as sinks for airborne microplastics, as well as release and adsorption potential.
3 Transport pathways of microplastics in remote regions
Remote ecosystems are located miles away from anthropogenic activities; however, major microplastic sources still include urban and industrial activities, road traffic, wastewater effluents, and plastic manufacturing industries (Figure 1). The transport of MPs to remote regions may occur through atmospheric, hydrologic, and cryospheric processes (Wang et al., 2025). The atmospheric pathway has emerged as a crucial phenomenon for dispersing microplastics to remote areas (Figure 1). According to Sathyamohan et al. (2023) and Yang et al. (2023), small and lightweight MPs are dominant in remote areas, as they can be suspended in the air and carried by wind currents over long distances. Evangeliou et al. (2020) found tyre wear particles (TWPs) and brake wear particles (BWPs) miles away from roads. Moreover, Ryan et al. (2023) observed a substantial increase in airborne microplastics during the peak of Hurricane Larry.
Figure 1. Pathways of microplastics to remote ecosystems.
Complementing atmospheric pathways, river flow is another pathway contributing to microplastic distribution, particularly larger particles (Wichmann et al., 2019; Pu et al., 2024). The transportation of microplastics by water flow was also observed in rivers, with some estimates suggesting that Arctic rivers alone convey approximately 8–48 tons/year, with a discharge flux of about 9.35 × 108 MP/s (Zhang et al., 2023). Yang et al. (2021) found a remote Koshi River in the Himalayas transporting microplastics, with 98% being fibres ranging from 0.1 to 1 mm in size. Similarly, the Ganges River was found to transport particles approximately 1.9 mm in size through water flow, with 96% being fibres (Napper et al., 2023). Moreover, the Mekong River was found to transport microplastics >2 mm dominated by fibres in Southeast Asia (Mendrik et al., 2025). The water flow pathway seems to be the primary contributor of larger microplastic particles in remote areas. Moreover, fibres are showing to be the dominant particles, which raises a concern due to the uncertainties around their impact on biota.
Besides the atmospheric pathway and river flow, migratory birds were reported to be potential transporters of microplastics to remote areas (Figure 1) (Mallory, 2008; Baak et al., 2020). Poon et al. (2017) investigated seabirds and found that the surface feeders exhibit a higher abundance of microplastics than the diving birds. Hamilton et al. (2021) found a significant abundance of microplastics (0.89 MP/individual) in the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) of migratory birds, fulmar, with fibres constituting 96% of the total number of particles. Moreover, Trevail et al. (2015) found an average of 15 MP/individual in the fulmar GIT. Microplastics ingestion by birds becomes a cause for concern due to potential ecological risks that could result in the food web.
There is overwhelming evidence proving that the atmospheric pathway, river flow and migratory birds transport microplastics to remote areas, with fibres constituting a high percentage of particles transported through these three modes. However, it remains unclear as to what drives this huge disparity of morphotypes with regard to transportation. Future studies may focus on quantification of the contributions of each pathway relative to the others to determine the one to be prioritised when establishing mitigation strategies. Moreover, there is little to no knowledge on the vertical distribution of microplastics, with size and morphotypes, and the partitioning between environmental matrices in remote areas. Therefore, future studies may also focus on this aspect to understand the potential of other morphotypes to increase in the soil, water, air and biota in remote areas.
4 Why the silence?
Microplastic research in remote areas has received limited attention (Figure 2), mainly due to methodological restrictions, limited accessibility, less interest as they are of no use to humans, and restrictions of human activities (Borriello, 2023; Kirschke et al., 2023). These limitations hinder comprehensive understanding and effective management of microplastic pollution in remote areas (Mihai et al., 2021). Accessibility and sampling challenges in remote areas, such as mountain terrains and polar regions, present significant difficulties for scientific research through restricted access to sites (Abdelmajeed and Juszczak, 2024). Geographical barriers such as steep slopes, streams, or ice cores and snow, harsh environmental conditions, and the need for specialized equipment and methodologies make data collection expensive, dangerous, and time-consuming (Borriello, 2023; Abdelmajeed and Juszczak, 2024).
Figure 2. The proportion of microplastic studies in remote ecosystems relative to elsewhere.
According to Devriese et al. (2025), the vague policy posture and implementation is among the reasons hindering microplastic studies in remote areas. The absence of specific regulations and indices to measure the impact of existing policies further complicates the evaluation process (Deme et al., 2022). The challenge of translating the broader plastic pollution policies into actionable strategies is mainly pronounced in isolated communities, where unique socio-economic and environmental contexts must be considered (Devriese et al., 2025). Many policies aim to ban single-use plastics or promote recycling without addressing the systemic issues that contribute to plastic pollution, particularly in vulnerable areas (Kentin and Kaarto, 2018). For instance, the International Coral Reef Initiative and the Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty (Vince et al., 2024) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) endorsed the reduction of plastic microbeads (Kokalj et al., 2019). Furthermore, the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) proposed a regional action plan to tackle microplastics, including recommendations on legal instruments to act upon it, encouraging microplastic-free formulas and replacing microplastics in personal care products (Munhoz et al., 2022).
5 Ecological implications
Despite little attention given to remote ecosystems, there is overwhelming evidence proving that no remote area is remote enough to escape microplastic pollution. Remote ecosystems exhibit unique characteristics, and their communities are sensitive to microplastic pollution (Wang et al., 2025). Various microplastic impacts have been observed on soil properties, ecosystem functioning, and physiology of organisms (Table 2). Microplastic particles in the soil may be blown from the soil back to the atmosphere, resulting in the atmospheric ecosystem comprising microplastics from two sources (Shinde et al., 2025). Peries et al. (2024) emphasised that microplastics in the atmosphere usually exhibit higher abundance due to multiple sources. The toxicity of microplastics may be influenced by their abundance, size, physical characteristics, and the sensitivity of the receptor (Jeong et al., 2024; Lebepe et al., 2025). Cheng et al. (2024) observed significant impacts on biochemical properties and ecosystem function in the soil, whereas Ju et al. (2025) emphasised that even at low abundance, microplastics affect soil aggregate stability and nutrient cycling due to their potential to block pores. Moreover, low abundance of microplastics was found to affect soil microbial community functioning (Yang et al., 2022). Iqbal et al. (2025) reported a significant reduction of plant growth, soil quality, and risk of global warming as a result of smaller microplastic particles, with a shift in soil microbial community structure being reported by Ma et al. (2023). Similarly, Hu et al. (2025) found smaller microplastic particles affecting the microbial communities and carbon metabolism in the forests, whereas Bergmann et al. (2023) found microplastics disturbing the metabolic activities in Melosira arctica algae at the deep seafloor in polar environments.
Table 2. The impact of microplastics in remote areas.
Besides impact on biota and ecological functions, microplastics in the atmosphere were found to influence cloud formation processes (Aeschlimann et al., 2022). According to Gaylarde et al. (2025), microplastics in the atmosphere may also be washed down to the Earth’s surface by rainfall, whereas Ishfaq et al. (2025) emphasised the impact of rainwater-borne microplastics in blocking the pores of plant cells. Moreover, microplastics may land in Arctic ice, and form a cover, which may affect the climate system by absorbing the radiation and influencing the melting rate (Bergmann et al., 2016; Bergmann et al., 2023). Microplastics impact in remote areas have been fairly explored; however, there is still a research gap on the morphotypes-related impact, which will support modelling of cumulative effect in the soil, air, water, and biota.
6 Conclusion
Based on the evidence scrutinized in the review, it may not be ideal to assume the environment is pristine and free from microplastics based on its location relative to anthropogenic activities. Microplastics are showing footprints in remote areas, deeming the word “remote area” irrelevant in the context of microplastic pollution. Given the uniqueness and sensitivity of most remote areas, the ecological effects of microplastics are likely to be felt severely compared to areas closer to human activities. It is evident that even in the absence of direct sources, microplastics find their way to all regions through numerous pathways. The atmospheric pathway shows to be the primary driver for microplastic pollution in remote regions, whereas river flows and migratory organisms also play a role in microplastic transportation. Nevertheless, the mechanism driving the morphotype distribution on the three transport pathways remains unclear. Therefore, future studies may explore vertical distribution of different sizes and morphotypes, and the partitioning between different matrices to provide insight into the fate and potential effect through predictive models.
Author contributions
JL: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. NB: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. MM: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing.
Funding
The authors declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This research was funded by the National Research Foundation, grant number CSUR240410213406, and the APC was funded by the Department of Biology and Environmental Sciences.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The authors declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Abdelmajeed, A. Y. A., and Juszczak, R. (2024). Challenges and limitations of remote sensing applications in northern peatlands: present and future prospects. Remote Sens. 16, 591. doi:10.3390/rs16030591
Aeschlimann, M., Li, G., Kanji, Z. A., and Mitrano, D. M. (2022). Microplastics and nanoplastics in the atmosphere: the potential impacts on cloud formation processes. Nat. Geosci. 15, 967–975. doi:10.1038/s41561-022-01051-9
Allen, S., Allen, D., Phoenix, V. R., Le Roux, G., Durántez Jiménez, P., Simonneau, A., et al. (2019). Atmospheric transport and deposition of microplastics in a remote Mountain catchment. Nat. Geosci. 12, 339–344. doi:10.1038/s41561-019-0335-5
Alvarado-Zambrano, D., Rivera-Hernández, J. R., and Green-Ruiz, C. (2023). First insight into microplastic groundwater pollution in Latin America: the case of a coastal aquifer in Northwest Mexico. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 30, 73600–73611. doi:10.1007/s11356-023-27461-9
Aves, A. R., Revell, L. E., Gaw, S., Ruffell, H., Schuddeboom, A., Wotherspoon, N. E., et al. (2022). First evidence of microplastics in antarctic snow. Cryosphere Discuss. 2022, 2127–2145. doi:10.5194/tc-16-2127-2022
Baak, J. E., Linnebjerg, J. F., Barry, T., Gavrilo, M. V., Mallory, M. L., Price, C., et al. (2020). Plastic ingestion by seabirds in the circumpolar arctic: a review. Environ. Rev. 28, 506–516. doi:10.1139/er-2020-0029
Barrett, J., Chase, Z., Zhang, J., Holl, M. M. B., Willis, K., Williams, A., et al. (2020). Microplastic pollution in deep-sea sediments from the great Australian bight. Front. Mar. Sci. 7, 576170. doi:10.3389/fmars.2020.576170
Bergmann, M., Peeken, I., Beyer, B., Krumpen, T., Primpke, S., Tekman, M. B., et al. (2016). Vast quantities of microplastics in arctic sea Ice—A prime temporary sink for plastic litter and a medium of transport. Fate Impact Microplastics Mar. Ecosyst., 75–76. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-812271-6.00073-9
Bergmann, M., Allen, S., Krumpen, T., and Allen, D. (2023). High levels of microplastics in the arctic sea ice alga Melosira arctica, a vector to ice-associated and benthic food webs. Environ. Sci. and Technol. 57, 6799–6807. doi:10.1021/acs.est.2c08010
Bhardwaj, L. K., Rath, P., Yadav, P., and Gupta, U. (2024). Microplastic contamination, an emerging threat to the freshwater environment: a systematic review. Environ. Syst. Res. 13, 8. doi:10.1186/s40068-024-00338-7
Borriello, A. (2023). Preferences for microplastic marine pollution management strategies: an analysis of barriers and enablers for more sustainable choices. J. Environ. Manag. 344, 118382. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118382
Cheng, Y., Wang, F., Huang, W., and Liu, Y. (2024). Response of soil biochemical properties and ecosystem function to microplastics pollution. Sci. Rep. 14, 28328. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-80124-8
Chifflard, P., Nather, T., and Weber, C. J. (2024). Transport of (micro)plastic within a river cross-section-spatio-temporal variations and loads. Microplastics 3, 755–770. doi:10.3390/microplastics3040047
Collard, F., Hallanger, I. G., Philipp, C., Herzke, D., Schmidt, N., Hotvedt, Å., et al. (2025). Microplastic pellets in arctic marine sediments: a common source or a common process? Environ. Res. 279, 121770. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2025.121770
Courtene-Jones, W., van Gennip, S., Penicaud, J., Penn, E., and Thompson, R. C. (2022). Synthetic microplastic abundance and composition along a longitudinal gradient traversing the subtropical gyre in the north Atlantic Ocean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 185, 114371. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.114371
de Souza, S. S., Freitas, Í. N., Gonçalves, S. d. O., Luz, T. M. d., Araújo, A. P. d. C., Rajagopal, R., et al. (2022). Toxicity induced via ingestion of naturally-aged polystyrene microplastics by a small-sized terrestrial bird and its potential role as vectors for the dispersion of these pollutants. J. Hazard. Mater. 434, 128814. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.128814
Deme, G. G., Ewusi-Mensah, D., Olagbaju, O. A., Okeke, E. S., Okoye, C. O., Odii, E. C., et al. (2022). Macro problems from microplastics: toward a sustainable policy framework for managing microplastic waste in Africa. Sci. Total Environ. 804, 150170. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150170
Devriese, L. I., Verleye, T. J., Vlachogianni, T., Maes, T., Boteler, B., Del Savio, L., et al. (2025). Setting the course: aligning european union marine pollution policy ambitions with environmental realities. Front. Mar. Sci. 12, 1586918. doi:10.3389/fmars.2025.1586918
D’Angelo, A., Trenholm, N., Loose, B., Glastra, L., Strock, J., and Kim, J. (2023). Microplastics distribution within Western arctic seawater and sea ice. Toxics 11, 792. doi:10.3390/toxics11090792
Emberson-Marl, H., Coppock, R. L., Cole, M., Godley, B. J., Mimpriss, N., Nelms, S. E., et al. (2023). Microplastics in the arctic: a transect through the Barents Sea. Front. Mar. Sci. 10, 1241829. doi:10.3389/fmars.2023.1241829
Evangeliou, N., Grythe, H., Klimont, Z., Heyes, C., Eckhardt, S., Lopez-Aparicio, S., et al. (2020). Atmospheric transport is a major pathway of microplastics to remote regions. Nat. Commun. 11, 3381. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-17201-9
Ficetola, G. F., Bonardi, A., Sindaco, R., and Padoa-Schioppa, E. (2013). Estimating patterns of reptile biodiversity in remote regions. J. Biogeogr. 40, 1202–1211. doi:10.1111/jbi.12060
Gaylarde, C. C., Baptista Neto, J. A., and da Fonseca, E. M. (2025). Atmospheric microplastics: inputs and outputs. Micro 5, 27. doi:10.3390/micro5020027
Gündoğdu, S., Kutlu, B., Özcan, T., Büyükdeveci, F., and Blettler, M. C. (2023). Microplastic pollution in two remote rivers of Türkiye. Environ. Monit. Assess. 195, 791. doi:10.1007/s10661-023-11426-z
Habibi, N., Uddin, S., Behbehani, M., and Lee, J.-Y. (2024). Is atmospheric pathway a significant contributor to microplastics in the marine environment? Emerg. Contam. 10, 100297. doi:10.1016/j.emcon.2023.100297
Hamilton, B. M., Bourdages, M. P. T., Geoffroy, C., Vermaire, J. C., Mallory, M. L., Rochman, C. M., et al. (2021). Microplastics around an arctic seabird colony: particle community composition varies across environmental matrices. Sci. Total Environ. 773, 145536. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145536
Hee, Y. Y., Hanif, N. M., Weston, K., Latif, M. T., Suratman, S., Rusli, M. U., et al. (2023). Atmospheric microplastic transport and deposition to urban and pristine tropical locations in Southeast Asia. Sci. Total Environ. 902, 166153. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.166153
Hu, W., Zhang, Z., and Mu, G. (2025). Microplastics indirectly affect soil respiration of different-aged forest by altering microbial communities and carbon metabolism. J. Hazard. Mater. 494, 138532. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2025.138532
Illuminati, S., Notarstefano, V., Tinari, C., Fanelli, M., Girolametti, F., Ajdini, B., et al. (2024). Microplastics in bulk atmospheric deposition along the coastal region of Victoria land, Antarctica. Sci. Total Environ. 949, 175221. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.175221
Iqbal, S., Li, Y., Xu, J., Worthy, F. R., Gui, H., Faraj, T. K., et al. (2025). Smallest microplastics intensify maize yield decline, soil processes and consequent global warming potential. J. Hazard. Mater. 486, 136993. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.136993
Ishfaq, M., Shakoor, N., Rillig, M. C., and Geilfus, C.-M. (2025). Airborne microplastics in leaves and food safety risks. Trends Plant Sci. 30, 1063–1065. doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2025.05.012
Jeong, E., Lee, J.-Y., and Redwan, M. (2024). Animal exposure to microplastics and health effects: a review. Emerg. Contam. 10, 100369. doi:10.1016/j.emcon.2024.100369
Jones-Williams, K., Rowlands, E., Primpke, S., Galloway, T., Cole, M., Waluda, C., et al. (2025). Microplastics in Antarctica - a plastic legacy in the antarctic snow? Sci. Total Environ. 966, 178543. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.178543
Ju, T., Chang, L., Liang, K., and Li, Y. (2025). Microplastics disrupt soil aggregate stability and associated nutrient dynamics in mulched salt-affected agricultural soils. Environ. Sci. and Technol. 59, 16603–16616. doi:10.1021/acs.est.5c01063
Kanhai, L. D. K., Gardfeldt, K., Krumpen, T., Thompson, R. C., and O’Connor, I. (2020). Microplastics in sea ice and seawater beneath ice floes from the Arctic Ocean. Sci. Rep. 10, 5004. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-61948-6
Kelly, A., Lannuzel, D., Rodemann, T., Meiners, K. M., and Auman, H. J. (2020). Microplastic contamination in east antarctic sea ice. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 154, 111130. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111130
Kentin, E., and Kaarto, H. (2018). An EU ban on microplastics in cosmetic products and the right to regulate. Rev. Eur. Comp. and Int. Environ. Law 27, 254–266. doi:10.1111/reel.12269
Khanam, M. M., Uddin, M. K., and Kazi, J. U. (2025). Advances in machine learning for the detection and characterization of microplastics in the environment. Front. Environ. Sci. 13, 1573579. doi:10.3389/fenvs.2025.1573579
Kirschke, S., van Emmerik, T. H., Nath, S., Schmidt, C., and Wendt-Potthoff, K. (2023). Barriers to plastic monitoring in freshwaters in the global south. Environ. Sci. and Policy 146, 162–170. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2023.05.011
Kokalj, A. J., Kuehnel, D., Puntar, B., Gotvajn, A. Ž., and Kalčikova, G. (2019). An exploratory ecotoxicity study of primary microplastics versus aged in natural waters and wastewaters. Environ. Pollut. 254, 112980. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2019.112980
Lavers, J. L., and Bond, A. L. (2017). Exceptional and rapid accumulation of anthropogenic debris on one of the world’s most remote and pristine islands. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, 6052–6055. doi:10.1073/pnas.1619818114
Lebepe, J., Buthelezi, N. M. D., and Manganyi, M. C. (2025). Occurrence and control of microplastics and emerging technological solutions for their removal in freshwaters: a comprehensive review. Microplastics 4, 70. doi:10.3390/microplastics4040070
Li, L., Zhang, Y., Kang, S., Wang, S., Gao, T., Wang, Z., et al. (2024). Characteristics of microplastics and their abundance impacts on microbial structure and function in agricultural soils of remote areas in west China. Environ. Pollut. 360, 124630. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2024.124630
López-Rojo, N., Pérez, J., Alonso, A., Correa-Araneda, F., and Boyero, L. (2020). Microplastics have lethal and sublethal effects on stream invertebrates and affect stream ecosystem functioning. Environ. Pollut. 259, 113898. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113898
Lusher, A. L., Tirelli, V., O’Connor, I., and Officer, R. (2015). Microplastics in arctic polar waters: the first reported values of particles in surface and sub-surface samples. Sci. Rep. 5, 14947. doi:10.1038/srep14947
Ma, J., Xu, M., Wu, J., Yang, G., Zhang, X., Song, C., et al. (2023). Effects of variable-sized polyethylene microplastics on soil chemical properties and functions and microbial communities in purple soil. Sci. Total Environ. 868, 161642. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.161642
Mallory, M. L. (2008). Marine plastic debris in northern fulmars from the Canadian high arctic. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 56, 1501–1504. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2008.04.017
Mehboob, S., Anjum, K. M., Azmat, H., and Imran, M. (2025). The measurement of microplastics in surface water and their impact on histopathological structures in wading birds of district Lahore. Front. Toxicol. 6, 1484724. doi:10.3389/ftox.2024.1484724
Mendrik, F., Hackney, C. R., Cumming, V. M., Waller, C., Hak, D., Dorrell, R., et al. (2025). The transport and vertical distribution of microplastics in the mekong river, SE Asia. J. Hazard. Mater. 484, 136762. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.136762
Mihai, F.-C., Gündoğdu, S., Markley, L. A., Olivelli, A., Khan, F. R., Gwinnett, C., et al. (2021). Plastic pollution, waste management issues, and circular economy opportunities in rural communities. Sustainability 14, 20. doi:10.3390/su14010020
Munhoz, D., Harkes, P., Beriot, N., Larreta, J., and Basurko, O. (2022). Microplastics: a review of policies and responses. Microplastics 2, 1–26. doi:10.3390/microplastics2010001
Mutshekwa, T., Motitsoe, S. N., Naidoo, T., Majingo, Z., and Mlambo, M. C. (2025a). Plastics underground: microplastic pollution in South African freshwater caves and associated biota. Hydrobiologia. doi:10.1007/s10750-025-05800-w
Mutshekwa, T., Mulaudzi, F., Maiyana, V. P., Mofu, L., Munyai, L. F., and Murungweni, F. M. (2025b). Atmospheric deposition of microplastics in urban, rural, forest environments: a case study of thulamela local Municipality. PloS One 20, e0313840. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0313840
Napper, I. E., Davies, B. F., Clifford, H., Elvin, S., Koldewey, H. J., Mayewski, P. A., et al. (2020). Reaching new heights in plastic Pollution—Preliminary findings of microplastics on Mount Everest. One Earth 3, 621–630. doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2020.10.020
Napper, I. E., Baroth, A., Barrett, A. C., Bhola, S., Chowdhury, G. W., Davies, B. F. R., et al. (2023). The distribution and characterisation of microplastics in air, surface water and sediment within a major river system. Sci. Total Environ. 901, 166640. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.166640
Nesterovschi, I., Marica, I., Andrea Levei, E., Bogdan Angyus, S., Kenesz, M., Teodora Moldovan, O., et al. (2023). Subterranean transport of microplastics as evidenced in karst springs and their characterization using raman spectroscopy. Spectrochimica Acta Part A Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 298, 122811. doi:10.1016/j.saa.2023.122811
Pastorino, P., Pizzul, E., Bertoli, M., Anselmi, S., Kušće, M., Menconi, V., et al. (2021). First insights into plastic and microplastic occurrence in biotic and abiotic compartments, and snow from a high-mountain lake (Carnic Alps). Chemosphere 265, 129121. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.129121
Peeken, I., Primpke, S., Beyer, B., Gütermann, J., Katlein, C., Krumpen, T., et al. (2018). Arctic sea ice is an important temporal sink and means of transport for microplastic. Nat. Commun. 9, 1505. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-03825-5
Peries, S. D., Sewwandi, M., Sandanayake, S., Kwon, H.-H., and Vithanage, M. (2024). Airborne transboundary microplastics–A swirl around the globe. Environ. Pollut. 353, 124080. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2024.124080
Poon, F. E., Provencher, J. F., Mallory, M. L., Braune, B. M., and Smith, P. A. (2017). Levels of ingested debris vary across species in Canadian arctic seabirds. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 116, 517–520. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.11.051
Pu, S., Bushnaq, H., Munro, C., Gibert, Y., Sharma, R., Mishra, V., et al. (2024). Perspectives on transport pathways of microplastics across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. Npj Clean. Water 7, 114. doi:10.1038/s41545-024-00410-w
Ross, P. S., Chastain, S., Vassilenko, E., Etemadifar, A., Zimmermann, S., Quesnel, S.-A., et al. (2021). Pervasive distribution of polyester fibres in the Arctic Ocean is driven by Atlantic inputs. Nat. Commun. 12, 106. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-20347-1
Ryan, A. C., Allen, D., Allen, S., Maselli, V., LeBlanc, A., Kelleher, L., et al. (2023). Transport and deposition of ocean-sourced microplastic particles by a North Atlantic hurricane. Commun. Earth and Environ. 4, 442. doi:10.1038/s43247-023-01115-7
Sarkar, S., Diab, H., and Thompson, J. (2023). Microplastic pollution: Chemical characterization and impact on wildlife. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 20, 1745. doi:10.3390/ijerph20031745
Sathyamohan, G., Sewwandi, M., Ambade, B., and Vithanage, M. (2023). Sources and circulation of microplastics in the aerosphere-atmospheric transport of microplastics. Microplastics Ecosphere Air, Water, Soil, Food, 125–146. doi:10.1002/9781119879534.ch8
Sharma, E., Surendra, K. C., Thanh, D. T., and Koottatep, T. (2025). A geospatial investigation of microplastics leaching in Ubon Ratchathani province, Thailand: fuzzy logic-based analysis. Environ. Monit. Assess. 197, 821. doi:10.1007/s10661-025-14263-4
Shehu, Z., Nyakairu, G. W. A., Tebandeke, E., and Odume, O. N. (2022). Overview of African water resources contamination by contaminants of emerging concern. Sci. Total Environ. 852, 158303. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158303
Sherlock, C., Fernie, K. J., Munno, K., Provencher, J., and Rochman, C. (2022). The potential of aerial insectivores for monitoring microplastics in terrestrial environments. Sci. Total Environ. 807, 150453. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150453
Shinde, S., Kamble, V., and Deshmukh, D. (2025). “Unraveling the threads: sources, pathways, and impacts of microplastic pollution,” in Microplastics: impacts and implications (India: Olympick Publisher). doi:10.5281/zenodo.15039335.10
Trevail, A. M., Gabrielsen, G. W., Kühn, S., and Van Franeker, J. A. (2015). Elevated levels of ingested plastic in a high arctic seabird, the northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis). Polar Biol. 38, 975–981. doi:10.1007/s00300-015-1657-4
Velasco, N. A. d. J., Rard, L., Blois, W., Lebrun, D., Lebrun, F., Pothe, F., et al. (2020). Microplastic and fibre contamination in a remote mountain lake in Switzerland. Water 12, 2410. doi:10.3390/w12092410
Vince, J., Walker, T., Willis, K., Stoett, P., Komyakova, V., Hardesty, B. D., et al. (2024). “Governance and socio-ecological aspects of plastics pollution in coastal and marine environments,” in Treatise on estuarine and coastal science. Second Edition (Elsevier), 765–799.
Wang, Y., Xu, X., Wu, J., Dong, Z., Su, Y., Huang, G., et al. (2025). Microplastics and nanoplastics on mt. Everest. Cell Rep. Sustain. 2, 100467. doi:10.1016/j.crsus.2025.100467
Weber, C. J., and Bigalke, M. (2025). Forest soils accumulate microplastics through atmospheric deposition. Commun. Earth and Environ. 6, 702. doi:10.1038/s43247-025-02712-4
Wei, Y., Yu, Y., Cao, X., Wang, B., Yu, D., Wang, J., et al. (2024). Remote mountainous area inevitably becomes temporal sink for microplastics driven by atmospheric transport. Environ. Sci. and Technol. 58, 13380–13390. doi:10.1021/acs.est.4c00296
Wei, W., Zhang, Y., Wang, L., Xing, Q., Xiang, J., Zhang, Y., et al. (2025). Microplastic pollution and its ecological risks in the Xisha Islands, South China Sea. Toxics 13, 205. doi:10.3390/toxics13030205
Wichmann, D., Delandmeter, P., and van Sebille, E. (2019). Influence of near-surface currents on the global dispersal of marine microplastic. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 124, 6086–6096. doi:10.1029/2019JC015328
Wright, S. L., Ulke, J., Font, A., Chan, K. L. A., and Kelly, F. J. (2020). Atmospheric microplastic deposition in an urban environment and an evaluation of transport. Environ. Int. 136, 105411. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2019.105411
Yang, L., Luo, W., Zhao, P., Zhang, Y., Kang, S., Giesy, J. P., et al. (2021). Microplastics in the Koshi River, a remote alpine river crossing the himalayas from China to Nepal. Environ. Pollut. 290, 118121. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2021.118121
Yang, B., Li, P., Entemake, W., Guo, Z., and Xue, S. (2022). Concentration-dependent impacts of microplastics on soil nematode community in bulk soils of maize: evidence from a pot experiment. Front. Environ. Sci. 10, 872898. doi:10.3389/fenvs.2022.872898
Yang, M., Tian, X., Guo, Z., Chang, C., Li, J., Guo, Z., et al. (2023). Wind erosion induced low-density microplastics migration at landscape scale in a semi-arid region of northern China. Sci. Total Environ. 871, 162068. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162068
Zhang, Y., Gao, T., Kang, S., Allen, D., Wang, Z., Luo, X., et al. (2023). Cryosphere as a temporal sink and source of microplastics in the arctic region. Geosci. Front. 14, 101566. doi:10.1016/j.gsf.2023.101566
Zhang, Z., Gao, J., Guan, E., Yao, X., Wang, W., Zhang, Z., et al. (2025). Effects of polyethylene microplastics on soil microbial assembly and ecosystem multifunctionality in the remote mountain: altitude matters. J. Hazard. Mater. 493, 138327. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2025.138327
Keywords: remote ecosystems, microplastics, soil pollution, atmospheric pathways, polar regions
Citation: Lebepe J, Buthelezi NMD and Manganyi MC (2025) Invisible travellers: a mini review on the presence and the ecological implications of microplastics in remote areas. Front. Environ. Sci. 13:1716067. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2025.1716067
Received: 30 September 2025; Accepted: 06 November 2025;
Published: 21 November 2025.
Edited by:
Fayuan Wang, Qingdao University of Science and Technology, ChinaReviewed by:
Grigorios L. Kyriakopoulos, National Technical University of Athens, GreeceCopyright © 2025 Lebepe, Buthelezi and Manganyi. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Jeffrey Lebepe, amxlYmVwZUB5YWhvby5jb20=