IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i2p537-d1565164.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Lichen and Moss Transplants for Monitoring the Deposition of Airborne Microfibers

Author

Listed:
  • Lisa Grifoni

    (Department of Life Sciences, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy
    Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, 00143 Rome, Italy
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Mehriban Jafarova

    (Department of Life Sciences, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy
    School of Environment, Trent University, Peterborough, ON K9L 0G2, Canada
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Noelia S. La Colla

    (Instituto Argentino de Oceanografía (IADO–CONICET/UNS), Camino La Carrindanga Km 7.5, Bahía Blanca 8000, Argentina
    Departamento de Biología, Bioquímica y Farmacia, Universidad Nacional del Sur, San Juan 670, Bahía Blanca 8000, Argentina)

  • Julian Aherne

    (School of Environment, Trent University, Peterborough, ON K9L 0G2, Canada)

  • Alessio Raulli

    (Department of Life Sciences, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy)

  • Stefano Loppi

    (Department of Life Sciences, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy)

Abstract

Interest in using lichens and mosses to monitor airborne microplastics is growing, but few studies have thoroughly compared their effectiveness as biomonitors. Here, we directly compare the ability of lichen and moss transplants collected from a rural area to accumulate microfibers (MFs) and Potentially Toxic Elements (PTEs) under the same deployment conditions. Transplants ( n = 60; triplicates for both lichen and moss) were co-deployed on tree branches across a range of urban exposure sites (e.g., commercial and residential areas and urban parks) for 77 days in Siena, Italy. The results showed that both biomonitors accumulated similar amounts of MFs, in terms of counts and on a mass basis, but when expressed on a surface area basis, lichens showed significantly higher values. Irrespective of the metric, lichen and moss MF accumulation data were strongly correlated. In contrast, there was no correlation between MFs and PTEs, suggesting that their sources were different. MFs accumulated by lichen and moss transplants were dominated by polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polypropylene polymers, suggesting that the main source of airborne MFs is synthetic textiles. Our results suggest that both lichen and moss transplants can be effectively used as low-cost monitors of atmospheric MFs in urban areas in support of the sustainable development goal of clean air.

Suggested Citation

  • Lisa Grifoni & Mehriban Jafarova & Noelia S. La Colla & Julian Aherne & Alessio Raulli & Stefano Loppi, 2025. "Comparison of Lichen and Moss Transplants for Monitoring the Deposition of Airborne Microfibers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-10, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:2:p:537-:d:1565164
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/2/537/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/2/537/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:2:p:537-:d:1565164. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.