Recovered but Polluted? Post-Biomining Monitoring of Microplastic Contamination in the Topsoil of the Recovered Land

Recovered but Polluted? Post-Biomining Monitoring of Microplastic Contamination in the Topsoil of the Recovered Land | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Recovered but Polluted? Post-Biomining Monitoring of Microplastic Contamination in the Topsoil of the Recovered Land Irédon Adjama, Shruti Patel, Harish Karthy, Dhruvin Patel, Hemen Dave This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8080128/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Legacy waste poses a significant threat to both human and environmental health. Biomining has emerged as a potential treatment of legacy waste accumulated over the years, clearing the land occupied for urban forests, green spaces, and other recreational purposes. Among the various waste fractions of legacy waste, plastics are of particular concern. Multiple studies have confirmed the presence of microplastics in leachates from dumpsites and landfills; however, limited research is available on microplastic contamination in recovered land/topsoil after biomining. As the World Health Organization recognizes microplastics as emerging pollutants of concern, assessing their occurrence in topsoil must be studied in post-biomining to ensure environmentally safe use of the recovered land. This study investigates post-biomining microplastic contamination in the topsoil of the recovered land once occupied by legacy waste at Gandhinagar dumpsite, with preliminary analysis of di-n-butyl phthalate (DBP), a common plasticizer. Results revealed an average contamination of 113.64 ± 9.91 × 10³ microplastics/kg in the topsoil of the recovered land. Fragment-shaped microplastics were dominant (≈ 75%), while fibers contributed 25–47%. The majority were small-sized particles (0.2–1.0 mm). ATR-FTIR analysis indicated that the microplastics were mainly composed of polyethylene, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, and polypropylene. Furthermore, DBP was detected at 1.32 ± 0.2 mg/kg in the topsoil, indicating chemical leaching from degrading plastic waste as well as microplastics. These findings underline the critical importance of post-biomining monitoring of microplastic contamination and raise concerns regarding the presence of plastic additives in the recovered lands. Dumpsite Legacy Waste Biomining Recovered Land Microplastics Di-n-butyl phthalate Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Introduction The rapid growth of urban populations and rising consumption patterns have led to the generation of large amounts of municipal solid waste (MSW), much of which has been historically dumped in open sites or landfills without appropriate treatment and management (Kumar and Agrawal, 2020 ; Meena et al., 2023 ). Over time, this accumulated, untreated MSW becomes legacy waste, a critical environmental challenge in many countries (Mohan and Joseph, 2021 ). Legacy waste typically consists of a heterogeneous mixture of decomposed organics, plastics, metals, glass, textiles, and inert materials (Ghosh et al., 2025 ). In proportion, plastic waste materials constitute a significant portion of the total waste accumulated. For instance, plastic waste accounts for around 15% of the total MSW disposed of at Chinese dumpsites (Ding et al., 2021 ). This can be explained by the indispensable use of plastics in modern life due to their low cost, lightweight, versatility, and durability, which have become major contributors to this problem (De Marchi et al., 2020 ; Nayanathara and Ratnayake, 2024). Historically, in the year 1950, the use of plastic materials was estimated to be near 2 million tons; in 2015 and 2021, it was estimated to be 380 and 390.7 million tons, respectively (Dokl et al., 2024 ; Kibria et al., 2023 ; Sekar and Sundaram, 2023 ). Nowadays, the yearly estimation of the global plastic usage is about 460 million tons. This massive usage of plastics is directly contributing to the generation of plastic waste again a weak recycling and management strategy. For instance, in 2015, the plastic waste generation reached 6300 million tons. Worldwide, the recycling capacity of plastic waste is estimated to be around 9%, 12% incineration, and the remianing 79% this plastic waste majorly accumulates at dumpsites as legacy waste over several years (Hartmann et al., 2024 ; Hou et al., 2021 ). The legacy waste is a prominent issue in developing countries, which face particular challenges in managing this growing burden due to poor source-level segregation, inefficient collection and transport systems, and the high costs of recycling or waste-to-energy conversion (Haritwal et al., 2024a ; Nayanathara and Ratnayake, 2024). Consequently, projections estimate that nearly 12,000 million metric tons of plastic waste will be accumulated in dumpsites as legacy waste by 2050 (Bharath et al., 2022 ; Dokl et al., 2024 ). Today, the legacy waste is not only occupying a large portion of land but also contributing to the emission of greenhouse gas, generating leachate containing heavy metals, metalloids, and persistent organic pollutants, which contaminate soil and nearby water bodies (Billings et al., 2023 ; Datta et al., 2021 ; Goli and Singh, 2023 ; Haritwal et al., 2024). In several developing nations, the legacy waste could accumulate in the dumpsite, exceeding a height of 50 meters, due to inadequate waste management strategies and pollution control systems (Datta et al., 2021 ). The growing recognition of the environmental and health risks associated with legacy waste has accelerated the search for effective remediation technologies. Among these, biomining has emerged as a sustainable approach to reclaiming land occupied by legacy waste. This process not only mitigates the release of contaminants into the environment but also enables the recovery of valuable by-products. Technically, biomining involves firstly the biological treatment, which is the microbial decomposition and stabilization of legacy waste, followed the excavation and mechanical segregation to recover reusable resources such as metals, plastics, textiles, glass, and soil (Haritwal et al., 2024a ; Parrodi et al., 2018 ). The implementation of biomining technology plays a vital role in clearing the land occupied by legacy waste. Recent research has highlighted the potential of the soil recovered as a by-product of biomining to be used as an agricultural amendment. Studies have shown that this recovered soil can function as an effective fertilizer, enhancing crop growth, for example, in Impatiens balsamina L. , and has even been recommended as a substitute for conventional compost (Joseph et al., 2003 ; Singh and Chandel, 2023 ; Zhou et al., 2015 ). This promising outcome has driven large-scale biomining initiatives at more than 60 landfills in China, where the primary goals were clearing the occupied land and the recovery of by-products, particularly soil for agricultural use (Datta et al., 2021 ). In India, MSW generation has reached approximately 62 million tons annually, with more than half disposed of at dumpsites, contributing to the accumulation of legacy waste (Hamdan et al., 2025 ). Of the total plastics produced in the country, only about 60% are recycled, while the remaining 40% enter dumpsites as part of MSW. It is estimated that 1,240 hectares of land are occupied by MSW dumping every year (Swati et al., 2019). To mitigate this growing challenge, the Government of India has promoted biomining as a potential strategy for the treating and recovering of valuable by-production from legacy waste and clearing the land occupied. In practice, several cities have already demonstrated the potential of this approach. For instance, Indore successfully transformed recovered land into a city forest by planting thousands of saplings, thereby creating a thriving public green space. Beyond ecological initiatives, recovered land also offers opportunities for urban and industrial development, including housing projects, commercial complexes, and other infrastructure projects that can ease the pressure on densely populated urban zones (Haritwal et al., 2024b ; Naaz et al., 2025 ). However, concerns have emerged regarding the safety of this practice. Studies have reported that soils recovered from biomining often contain heavy metals and salts at concentrations exceeding the maximum permissible limits. As a result, their use as agricultural amendments could contribute to the accumulation and spread of these contaminants in agricultural ecosystems (Datta et al., 2021 ). Furthermore, considering that MSW typically contains 21 to 42% plastic waste (Su et al., 2019 ), the recovered soil from legacy was proven to be contaminated with microplastics. For instance, a recent study conducted at three dumpsites in New Delhi revealed that soils recovered from legacy waste biomining contained between 25,950 and 41,110 plastic particles per kilogram, with an average particle size of 0.4 mm (Haritwal et al., 2024). These particles are formed through the biological, physical, chemical, and mechanical degradation of plastic waste present in MSW over time, ultimately fragmenting into particles smaller than 5 mm called microplastics (Kabir et al., 2023 ; X. Shi et al., 2023 ). However, the microplastic contamination in the topsoil of the recovered land is not being examined in any such study, and this is the first attempt to study the microplastic contamination in the topsoil of recovered land. In addition to the release of microplastics resulting from the fragmentation of larger plastic debris, phthalate esters, major constituents of plastics, also pose significant environmental concerns (Wang et al., 2022 ). These compounds can account for up to 60% of the total plastic weight, as they are not covalently bound to the polymer matrix and are therefore easily released into the surrounding environment (Net et al., 2015 ). High concentrations of phthalate esters have been reported worldwide; for instance, levels up to 1.3 µg/g were detected in deep soils from a municipal solid waste landfill in China (Liu et al., 2010 ). Similarly, in Poland, leakage of landfill leachate resulted in concentrations of 103 µg/L of phthalate esters in adjacent groundwater (Kotowska et al., 2020 ). Among the detected compounds, di-n-butyl phthalate (DBP) is the most frequently observed and has been extensively documented for its endocrine-disrupting properties, with potential teratogenic, mutagenic, and carcinogenic effects. Consequently, further investigation into the persistence of residual contaminants, such as phthalate compounds, in biomined and recovered land is necessary. This highlights the importance of post-biomining monitoring of topsoil for such contaminations and to ensure that the recovered land is environmentally safe for human health over the long term. Against this backdrop, the present study aims to quantify, characterize, and identify microplastic contamination in the topsoil of land recovered by biomining of legacy waste at the Gandhinagar dumpsite. Furthermore, previous studies have reported elevated concentrations of phthalates in dumpsite soils, possibly sourced from microplastics, as they have a large surface area due to their smaller size (Chakraborty et al., 2019 ; Deng et al., 2021 ). Therefore, in addition to assessing microplastic contamination, this study also carried out a preliminary investigation of DBP, a common plastic additive used here as an indicator of chemical leaching from plastic waste within the remediated legacy dumpsite. Materials and methods Materials and equipment This study utilized several reagents such as, Methanol (99.9%, HPLC grade) (Advent), Acetonitrile (99.9%, HPLC grade) (Advent), sulphuric acid (98%, AR grade) (Central Drug House Pvt. Ltd.), Ferrous sulphate heptahydrate (98%, AR grade) (Sisco Research Laboratories PVT. Ltd.), Hydroden peroxide (30% w/v) (Central Drug House Pvt. Ltd.), Sodium chloride (AR grade) (Central Drug House Pvt. Ltd.), Magnesium sulphate (98%) (Sisco Research Laboratories PVT. Ltd.), Dibutyl Phthalate (98%) (Sisco Research Laboratories PVT. Ltd.). Doubled-distilled water was used to prepare all mixtures and to wash microplastics. Furthermore, borosilicate glass containers were used to collect the dumpsite soil and prevent contamination. The samples were dried in the hot air oven, Model: LLO-325GP, Make: LABTOP. For the weighing of the sample, we use a precision balance, Model: ATY224, Make: SHIMADZU. A magnetic stirrer, Model: 2MLH, Make: REMI, was used to mix the sample. During the extraction of microplastics, at the separation level, a vacuum filtration setup equipped with a glass fiber filter, MN GF-2, Item No.: 4120047, featuring a 47 mm diameter and an approximate pore size of 0.5 µm. The microplastics visualisation was performed under a stereomicroscope Model: Stemi 2000-C, and their chemical composition determination was performed using Attenuated Total Reflectance-Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy, ATR-FTIR, Model: Jasco-4700. The ultrasonicator used was from LABMAN, LMUC-3. A Jasco Isocratic HPLC 2000 with a Reverse Phase C-18 Column was used for the analysis of DBP. Study area and sample collection of the topsoil recovered land Historically, Gandhinagar city was created in the late 1960s. Gandhinagar is a city located 23 km north of Ahmedabad. Gandhinagar is called the capital of Gujarat, and is known as a green city in the 1970s of the State and is called India's tree capital. The MSW in Gandhinagar is managed by the Gandhinagar Municipal Corporation. It's estimated that the city generates about 95 metric tons of solid waste daily. Due to the weak management capacity, a small part of the waste generated is segregated and processed for compost, biogas and methane production. The remaining of the MSW is dumped at a dumpsite located at Sector 30. According to the report of the Gandhinagar Municipal Corporation, it is estimated that in 2016, 85000 metric tons of legacy waste (MCG, 2019 ). In recent years, due to the health risk and environmental pollution caused by the legacy waste, such as the creation of breeding grounds for pests, generation of leachate that contaminates water bodies, emission of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change, generation of hazardous gases like methane and hydrogen sulfide that cause respiratory issues, the risk of uncontrollable fires, and soil and air pollution from decomposing materials and poisonous smoke and the occupation of significant land space and probilitirs of cause slope failures, the Gandhinagar Municipal Corporation, has intiated the the implementation of booming of a legacy to reclaim the occupied land by microbial stabilisation of waste, it excavation and separation of in byproducts (Ghosh et al., 2025 ; Mohan and Joseph, 2020 ). The land recovered after biomining legacy waste can be utilised for sustainable urban development. At the top of this recovered land, a samples of topsoil were collected using a stratified sampling method. A total of twelve sampling points were randomly selected across different strata within the site (see Fig. 1 ), and triplicate samples were taken from each point. At each location, three subsamples of 200 grams each were collected within a 1 to 2-meter radius using a cylindrical stainless-steel sampler to a depth of 10 cm. The collected soil was placed in glass containers, transported to the laboratory, and air-dried at 40°C for one week. Once dried, the samples were sieved through a 9.5 mm mesh and then stored at 4°C for subsequent analysis.. Process of microplastic extraction and identification A 150 g homogeneous subsample was obtained using the cone and quartering method at each sampling point from the stored soil samples. These subsamples were then individually subjected to microplastics analysis, which was conducted in four main steps: first, the digestion of organic matter present in the sample; second, the separation of microplastics from the sample matrix; third, the filtration of the separated microplastics; and finally, the characterization of the extracted microplastics. Digestion of organic matter A 50 g sample of the collected soil was mixed with 200 mL of distilled water in a 500 mL beaker and stirred at 150 rpm for 1 hour using a magnetic stirrer. The homogenized soil suspension was then subjected to the Fenton reaction, following the procedure described by Adjama & Dave ( 2025 ). The pH of the solution was first adjusted to approximately 3 by adding sulfuric acid (H₂SO₄). The Fenton reaction was initiated by adding ferrous ions (Fe²⁺) (In the form of FeSO 4 .7H 2 O) at a concentration of 1 molar equivalent, followed by the addition of hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) at a concentration of 2 molar equivalents. The reaction was allowed to proceed at room temperature for 6 hours to ensure complete degradation of organic matter. Density separation and filtration of microplastics Sodium chloride (NaCl) was added to the digested soil suspension until the mixture reached a density of approximately 1.2 g/mL. The mixture was stirred for 30 minutes using a magnetic stirrer to facilitate the separation process. After stirring, the solution was carefully transferred into a separating funnel to allow the inorganic particles to settle. Following a settling period of 5 hours, the supernatant, containing the microplastics, was gently separated from the heavier soil particles. The suspended microplastics in the supernatant were then filtered using a glass fiber filter (GF-2, pore size: 0.5 µm) with the help of a vacuum filtration assembly. The filter papers were dried in an oven at 40°C for 3 hours and subsequently stored in a desiccator for further analysis. Physical characterization A stereo microscope (Stemi 2000-C) was used to observe and capture images of microplastics retained on filter paper. The collected images were examined to count the number of microplastics and to determine the shape attributes of each particle. Furthermore, Image-J Software was used to measure microplastic size. In the software, the equivalent diameter of microplastics in the shape of a fragment was calculated using the method of Schnepf et al. ( 2023 ), and for microplastics in fiber-shaped size was referred to as the geodesic lines, as developed by Cowger et al. ( 2020 ) and Schnepf et al. ( 2023 ). Chemical characterization The chemical characterization of the microplastics (MPs) was carried out using Attenuated Total Reflection Fourier-Transform Infrared (ATR-FTIR) spectroscopy. Spectral data were collected over a wavenumber range of 500 cm⁻¹ to 4000 cm⁻¹ (32 Scans) at a resolution of 4cm⁻¹. Each obtained spectrum was compared with reference data published by Veerasingam et al. ( 2021 ) to identify the chemical composition of the microplastics. Process of Di-n-butyl phthalate extraction and quantification From the stored homogeneous subsample soil samples (referred to in subsection 2.2), a single homogenized sample was derived and air-dried. This sample was subsequently stored at 4°C until further analysis. Quantitative analysis of DBP was performed using the ultrasonic-based extraction method given below. The extraction method of DBP was adopted from a previous study with modifications (Liu et al., 2018 ). Briefly, 10g of homogenized soil was placed in a glass beaker with 10 ml of distilled water. Then, a 30 ml mixture of extraction solvent, n-hexane/acetone (1:1), and NaCl was added to the soil sample. Ultrasonic extraction was carried out for 20 minutes, and the 10 ml supernatant was transferred to a 50 ml centrifuge tube. The tube was centrifuged for 5 minutes at 4000 rpm. Next, 2 g MgSO 4 was added and sonicated for 5 minutes; after that, the mixture was centrifuged at 4000 rpm for 5 minutes. Then, 5 ml of supernatant was taken for HPLC analysis. The recovery obtained for the extraction method used was 98%. Detection of DBP : HPLC was used to detect phthalates from soil samples after extraction. The supernatant solution was filtered using a syringe filter (Pore size: 22 µm). A HPLC with a Reverse Phase C-18 Column was used for analysis, and DBP was detected at a wavelength of 230 nm with a UV/VIS Detector. The column was run with a mobile phase mixture of 90% acetonitrile and 10% HPLC-grade water at a 1.0 mL/min flow rate. Experimental quality control Experimental quality was ensured by avoiding plastic materials throughout the process, from soil sampling to the final extraction, visualization, identification of microplastics, and the extraction and analysis of DBP. All glassware and other materials used in this experiment were washed correctly, dried in an oven at 200°C overnight, and covered with aluminium foil before being stored in a dedicated space. This practice was implemented to prevent any potential deposition of microplastics and dust. Distilled water was exclusively used for sample dilution during the experiment. The distilled water and NaCl solution were meticulously filtered through a 1.2 µm pore size filter to prevent any external contamination by microplastics. Cotton laboratory coats and clean gloves were worn throughout the experiment to maintain a controlled environment. Furthermore, the filters used for the microplastics filtration were examined under a stereomicroscope, ensuring their cleanliness and suitability were confirmed before use. Data analysis The datasets on microplastic abundance, shape, size distribution, and polymer composition were organized, processed, and visualized using OriginPro 2025b. Statistical analyses were conducted in R software (version 4.4.1) to compare mean values across different sampling sites and parameters. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to assess significant differences among groups, followed by Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) post-hoc test to identify specific pairwise variations where applicable. Results were expressed as mean ± standard deviation. Results and discussion Microplastic abundance The analysis of microplastic contamination in topsoil across twelve sampling points at the recovered land of the dumpsite in Gandhinagar City, India, revealed a notable spatial variation in microplastic concentration (Refer to Fig. 2 a), likely driven by differences in waste disposal activities, topography, and site exposure. The overall average microplastic abundance recorded across all points was 113.64 ± 9.91 × 10³ MPs/kg (Refer to Fig. 2 b), indicating a generally high level of microplastic pollution with moderate variability (Refer to Fig. 2 b). Among the individual points, Point 10 showed the highest concentration at 128.33 ± 3.51 × 10³ MPs/kg, indicating a consistent and significant accumulation of plastic-rich waste in that area, possibly due to frequent dumping or its proximity to high-traffic zones. This was followed closely by Point 7, with 125.33 ± 7.02 × 10³ MPs/kg, and Point 4, with 124.00 ± 4.36 × 10³ MPs/kg, both of which reflect potential hotspots for plastic deposition. Point 12 also showed a high level, i.e., 118.33 ± 3.51×10³ MPs/kg, indicating a considerable contamination. Other points, such as Point 5, Point 6, and Point 9, having respectively 116.67 ± 4.04 × 10³ MPs/kg, 117.67 ± 2.08 × 10³ MPs/kg, and 114.67 ± 6.43 × 10³ MPs/kg, showed slightly above-average concentrations, suggesting moderate but consistent microplastic input, potentially due to their proximity to mixed waste deposits. Points 2 and 11 contain 111.33 ± 4.73× 10³ MPs/kg and 103.67 ± 5.13× 10³ MPs/kg, respectively. In contrast, Point 8 recorded the lowest concentration of microplastics at 99.67 ± 5.69× 10³ MPs/kg, indicating fluctuating deposition patterns or localized clean-up efforts. Similarly, Point 1, with 102.67 ± 2.08 × 10³ MPs/kg, and Point 3, with 101.33 ± 3.06 × 10³ MPs/kg, displayed lower concentrations with minimal variation, which could be due to recent dumping activity and more uniform pollution levels, likely from older or less plastic-rich waste. In comparison to the global research findings, the current study, the post-monitoring of the recovered land revealed a notably high concentration of microplastics in soil samples, with an average of 113.64 ± 9.91 × 10³ MPs/kg of soil. This value is significant compared to similar studies conducted across various global landfill and waste disposal sites. For direct comparisons, one must consider differences in sample matrices, such as leachate versus solid waste or surface versus Topsoil or soil collected from depth. The concentration ranges offer insight into the degree and nature of microplastic pollution associated with landfills and dumpsites. For example, studies on landfill leachate, which represents the water percolation/runoff through the waste mass, generally reported lower microplastic concentrations. Trihadiningrum et al. (2023) identified 9.00 ± 0.85 particles/L in leachate from the landfill in Mojokerto, Indonesia. Similarly, Zhang et al. ( 2021 ) and Wan et al. (2022) reported 1.2 mircoplastics/L and 3–25 mciroplastics/L in leachate from landfills in Shanghai and Guangdong Province, China. Although leachate represents a diluted medium compared to soil, its contamination levels still reflect the degree of plastic fragmentation and migration within landfill systems. The higher concentration of microplastics in the Gandhinagar soil highlights how solid matrices, particularly the Topsoil, act as long-term microplastic reservoirs, capturing persistent large fragments and fine degraded particles. In contrast, studies analyzing landfill refuse soil, typically sampled from buried or degraded solid waste layers, reported a wider range of microplastic concentrations, some of which align more closely with the findings of this study. For instance, Shirazi et al. (2023) found 863 ± 681 particles/kg of soil at the Kahrizak landfill in Iran, which, although it is lower than the findings reported in this study, demonstrates comparable magnitudes when accounting for variability. Similarly, Wan et al. (2022) documented exceptionally high values ranging from 590 to 103,080 items/kg and 570 to 14,200 items/kg of landfill refuse soil in Guangdong, China, depending on sampling depth and plastic exposure. Such broad ranges indicate the influence of localized waste input, waste composition, site age, and plastic degradation conditions on microplastic generation and accumulation in soil. Some of the highest concentrations of microplastics in solid matrices were reported by Huang et al. ( 2022 ), who identified 71.3 ± 17.7 to 653.1 ± 191.5 particles/g of plastic waste deposits at a landfill in Shanghai. When converted, these values amount to tens to hundreds of thousands of particles per kilogram, exceeding even the concentrations found in recovered land topsoil at the dumpsite of Gandhinagar. However, it is important to note that Huang’s study focused on plastic-rich waste fractions (Huang et al., 2022 ). In contrast, the current study examined Topsoil from an open dumpsite, making the comparison an indicator of background plastic pollution rather than targeted waste fraction analysis. Meanwhile, Sholokhova et al. ( 2023 ) reported 55,000 items/kg in landfill soil from Kaunas et al. (2020) counted 291 ± 91 particles/L in landfill leachate from Shanghai, adding further diversity to the global dataset. Although the findings of this study don’t exceed all reported concentrations, it falls within the upper-middle range of findings reported in various studies carried out across the world, especially about unmanaged or semi-managed waste disposal zones where plastic waste tends to accumulate with little to no mitigation. In Southeast Asia, Nayahi et al. (2022) compared microplastic concentration in leachate from controlled landfills and open dumpsites in Thailand and observed 8.80 MPs/L in controlled sites and 9.93 MPs/L in open dumping areas, again reinforcing the trend that less managed facilities accumulate higher microplastic loads over time. Interestingly, the soil microplastic concentration reported in this study is significantly higher than these values, even though both regions share similar climatic and socio-environmental realities. Overall, this comparative analysis demonstrates that the recovered topsoil from Gandhinagar’s dumpsite can be a potential diffusion point of microplastics into the surrounding environment. Although microplastic concentrations in leachate and refuse soil can vary considerably due to differences in sampling methods, site conditions, and waste composition (including plastic percentage and types), the consistently high concentrations detected in the topsoil clearly indicate that open dumpsites function as long-term accumulation hotspots for fragmented plastic debris. These findings emphasize the urgent need for expanded regional monitoring and immediate policy interventions aimed at strengthening plastic waste management. Furthermore, they highlight the importance of systematic post-monitoring of microplastic contamination in recovered land following biomining of legacy waste, particularly before considering any potential future land use. Microplastics shape characterization The characterization of microplastic types in topsoil samples of the recovered land at the Gandhinagar municipal solid waste dumpsite revealed that both fibers and fragments were present, though fragments were generally more dominant across all sampling points. Fragment concentrations ranged from 25.91 × 10³ MPs/kg to 54.83 × 10³ MPs/kg, or 55 to 77% of the total microplastics detected, whereas fibers concentrations varied more broadly, from 88.25 × 10³ MPs/kg to 55.73 × 10³ MPs/kg (45 − 23%) (Refer to Fig. 3 a and 3 b). At most locations, fragments consistently outnumbered fibers, suggesting a higher degradation rate and breakdown of larger plastic items such as containers, wrappers, and packaging materials into irregular-shaped fragments. At Sampling Point 5, the highest fiber concentration was recorded, with fibers accounting for 47% and fragments comprising 53%. This near-balance suggests both fibrous and rigid plastic waste are significantly present in that zone. Conversely, Point 8 exhibited the lowest fiber concentration, with fibers making up just 26%, while fragments accounted for 74%, implying that even with low fiber microplastic occurrence, fragment accumulation remains high, possibly due to intense mechanical weathering or degradation of macroplastic waste. Other examples underline the disparity between fiber and fragment levels. At Point 6, fibers represented only 25% of the total, while fragments reached 75%. A similar trend was observed at Point 7, where fibers occupied 33% of the total microplastics detected, and were accompanied by 67% of fragments. At Point 9, fiber content was 26% and fragment content was 74%, confirming fragment dominance. Points such as Point 1 and Point 3 had fibers contributing 44% and 45% respectively, showing a relatively higher fiber proportion than most other points. Point 4 had fibers at 35% and fragments at 65%, suggesting a moderate imbalance. Meanwhile, Point 10 had fibers comprising 35%, which shows again the dominant role of plastic fragments. At Point 2, fibers were measured at 33% and fragments at 67%. Point 11 had a fiber proportion of 36% and 64% fragments, while Point 12 had 30% fibers and 70% fragments, confirming a consistent pattern across most sites. In summary, in most locations, fragments of microplastics were more than two-thirds of the total microplastics, indicating extensive plastic degradation. Comparative studies from around the world show both overlap and divergence in the dominant shapes of microplastics, depending on the type of waste, stage of degradation, and landfill management system. In Mojokerto, Indonesia, Trihadiningrum et al. (2023) reported that fibers (64.44%) were the most common microplastic shape in leachate, followed by fragments (28.89%) and films (6.67%), a pattern that partially reflects the one found in Gandhinagar, especially the detection of fragment and fiber-shaped microplastics. However, the topsoil of the recovered land displayed higher fragment content than most leachate-based studies, possibly due to the retention and accumulation of heavier and more broken particles in soil versus their potential transport in leachate. In contrast, studies such as Sholokhova et al. ( 2023 ) in Kaunas County, Lithuania, and Shirazi et al. (2023) in Iran reported a dominance of films, with films comprising 49.3–50.7% and 56% of total microplastics, respectively, in landfill refuse soil. In the Iranian landfill, fragments and fibers comprised 17.3% and 20.1%, possibly a different waste profile and perhaps less mechanical breakdown. Similarly, Huang et al.(2022) in Shanghai, China, found films (41.1%) were the most abundant, followed by fragments (24.9%) and fibers (18.8%), which again contrasts with the fragment-rich profile seen in Gandhinagar’s dumpsite. These differences may stem from the higher use of plastic packaging in municipal waste, regional differences in plastic usage, and landfill age or depth, influencing the shape types of microplastics released. Other studies, such as Nurhasanah et al. (2021), found that fragments (57.14%) dominated the microplastics found in leachate samples in Galuga, Indonesia, further supporting the general trend of fragment dominance, especially in tropical and subtropical zones where mechanical and UV weathering are enhanced. On the other hand, He et al.(2019), analyzing leachate from landfill sites of four Chinese cities, categorized microplastics into lines (14.81%), flakes (22.87%), fragments (58.62%), and minor fractions of pellets and foams, further confirming the recurring dominance of fragment-shaped microplastics. Overall, the dominance of fragment-shaped microplastics in the topsoil of the recovered land occupied by Gandhinagar dumpsite is consistent with trends observed in unmanaged or weather-exposed landfills globally, where continuous exposure to environmental conditions facilitates the breakdown of larger plastic items into irregularly shaped particles. The relatively high presence of fibers also indicates additional anthropogenic sources, such as textile waste or sewage sludge application (Periyasamy and Tehrani-Bagha, 2022 ). Microplastics size characterization The distribution of microplastic sizes across the twelve sampling points at the recovered land indicates a clear predominance of smaller-sized particles, particularly in the 0.2 mm to 1.0 mm range. On average, 55.58% of all microplastics fell within this smallest class, 35.08% in the 1.0 mm to 2.0 mm range, and only 9.33% in the 2.0 mm to 5.0 mm class. In absolute terms, the number of microplastics in the 0.2 to 1.0 mm size range averaged 63.31 ± 10.19× 10³ MPs/kg, significantly higher than the 1.0 to 2.0 mm (39.81 ± 10.80× 10³ MPs/kg) and 2.0 to 5.0 mm (10.52 ± 6.77× 10³ MPs/kg) ranges (referred to Fig. 4 a and 4 b and Fig. 5 ). This dominance of smaller particles is consistent across nearly all sampling points. Across the individual sampling points, this trend was largely consistent. Point 4 had the highest proportion of microplastics in the smallest size range, with 65% of particles falling between 0.2 and 1.0 mm. Similarly, Point 12 and Point 1 also exhibited high proportions of small microplastics, at 63% and 62% respectively. These elevated percentages suggest that these locations may be zones of intense degradation or long-term accumulation of fragmented plastic waste, releasing smaller microplastics. Interestingly, Points 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 showed slightly lower proportions of small-sized microplastics, ranging between 51% and 58%, which still indicates. The lowest proportion of small microplastics was found at Point 9 (42%), deviating from the general trend. At this point, 51% of the microplastics were in the 1.0 mm to 2.0 mm category, the highest proportion across all points. This suggests that the less degradation of plastics present or the input of medium-sized plastic fragments is more active in that area. The 1.0 mm to 2.0 mm size category consistently represented the second most abundant fraction of microplastics across the sampling points, reaching its highest proportion at Point 9, which is 51% of the total detected microplastics. Elsewhere, its share remained moderate, varying between 22% at Point 12 and 42% at Points 2 and 7. This pattern indicates that while some microplastics in this size range may be primary particles, the majority are likely intermediate fragments formed during the progressive breakdown of larger plastic debris. The largest size class ( 2.0 mm to 5.0 mm) was the least represented across all sampling points, with an overall average of just 9.33%. Most points had less than 15% of microplastics in this range, and at Point 10, this size class was absent (0%), indicating complete fragmentation or the dominance of older plastic materials already broken down. Points with the highest relative proportions of large microplastics included Point 5 (20%), Point 11 (13%), and Point 6 (13%), which could reflect recent deposition of coarse plastic waste or less weathered material. Overall, the percentage-based data clearly illustrate that smaller microplastics (< 1.0 mm) are the most prevalent form at the dumpsite, accounting for over half of all detected microplastics at nearly every location. This prevalence is of significant environmental concern due to fine microplastics’ enhanced mobility, persistence, and bioavailability. The relatively low and variable presence of larger microplastics further supports the inference that prolonged degradation processes are ongoing at the site, fragmenting discarded macroplastics into finer particles over time. Compared to global studies, a consistent trend of small-sized microplastics is evident, though variations in size distribution reflect differences in waste management practices, climatic conditions, and may be the analytical methods. For instance, Trihadiningrum et al. (2023) in Mojokerto, Indonesia, reported that leachate samples were mainly composed of MPs sized 350 to 1000 µm (64.44%), followed by 100 to 350 µm (31.11%), and a minor share of 1000 to 5000 µm (4.45%). Similarly, Sholokhova et al. ( 2023 ) found microplastics in landfill refuse soil in Lithuania predominantly within the 0.1 to 0.2 mm range for older/mid-aged waste, and 0.2 to 0.5 mm for younger landfill cells. These values indicate a comparable degradation level, though the finer size range is in Gandhinagar. The findings by Shirazi et al. (2023) at the Kahrizak landfill soil in Iran also reflect a similar pattern: 42.8% of microplastics were in the 0.1 to 0.5 mm range, 33.8% in 0.5 to 1 mm, and 17.2% in 1 to 2 mm, closely aligning with our findings in the topsoil of recovered land at Gandhinagar. These current proportions confirmed the findings of Shi et al. ( 2023 ) across various landfill sites globally, microplastics are breaking down into finer particles over time, particularly in unregulated or open dump environments. Studies from China further reinforce this trend. For example, Huang et al. ( 2022 ) observed that the majority of microplastics in landfill refuse soil in Shanghai were < 0.5 mm, and Wan et al. ( 2022a ) also categorized microplastics from refuse into small (< 0.5 mm), medium (0.5 to 1 mm), and large (1 to 5 mm), with smaller sizes dominating in aged waste. In landfill leachate samples, even finer microplastics were found. Wan et al. ( 2022a ) reported 85% of microplastics in the 20 to 150 µm range (0.02 to 0.15 mm), while Xu et al. ( 2020 ) found most particles were ≤ 60 µm, with an overall range of 20 to 100 µm in landfill soil. Similarly, Sun et al. ( 2021 ) found that in the Suzhou landfill site, China, 50% of leachate microplastics were < 50 µm, demonstrating the extreme fineness of particles once they mobilize into aqueous systems. This comparative assessment reveals that the size distribution of microplastics in the Gandhinagar dumpsite soil marginally differs from trends observed globally, particularly in countries with similar climatic conditions and waste management challenges. The predominance of small microplastics not only reflects high degradation but also implies increased ecological mobility, with the potential to infiltrate food webs, groundwater, and soil microbial systems (Adjama et al., 2024a , 2024b ; Pironti et al., 2021 ). These findings further underline the need for microplastic monitoring and source-control measures, especially in the case of land recovered after biomining of legacy waste before any potential usage. Polymer type characterization The chemical composition of each microplatsics detected under ATR-FTIR spectroscopy and compared to the spectra data provided by Jung et al. ( 2018 ) and Veerasingam et al. ( 2021 ) revealed that eight primary polymer types were presented, such as Polystyrene (PS), Nylon, Low-Density Polyethylene (LDPE), High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE), Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS), Polyurethane (PU), Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), and Polypropylene (PP) (Figs. 6 and 7 ). Among these, HDPE was the most frequently encountered polymer, with an average representation of 17.77%, followed by LDPE (15.85%), ABS (15.08%), and PP (13.15%). These four polymers together contributed nearly 62% of the total polymer composition across the site, highlighting the dominance of common packaging and consumer product materials in waste dumped at the MSW dumpsite. HDPE, which is commonly used in rigid plastic containers, pipes, or detergent bottles, was particularly abundant at Point 5 (25%), Point 3 (22%), and Point 4 (22%). LDPE, typically associated with plastic bags and film, was notably high at Point 1 (25%) and Point 8 (22%). ABS, often found in electronic and automotive components, peaked at Point 8 and Point 9 (25%), hinting at possible e-waste or durable goods dumping. Nylon, a synthetic fiber used in textiles and fishing gear, had an average share of 11.38%, with maximum representation at Point 2 (20 to 22%), indicating fiber-related waste, possibly from household dumping waste. PP, which is widely used in containers, caps, and woven bags, also showed a significant presence, especially at Point 1 (22%), Point 2 (16%), and Point 4 (16%). The less abundant polymers included PU (8.62%), PTFE (8.69%), and PS (9.46%), which nevertheless appeared consistently across most points. PU, known for use in foams and insulation, showed its highest share at Point 5 (16%) and Point 3 (14%), likely from cushioning materials or building waste. PTFE, though typically less common in municipal waste, appeared in notable amounts (12 to 15%) at Points 10, 11, and 12, suggesting specialized waste input, possibly from cookware residues. PS, generally used in packaging foam residues or disposable food containers, was observed in modest proportions across most points, reaching a maximum of 12% at Point 2 and Point 5. This diversity aligns well with typical patterns found in landfill refuse soil and leachate at the global level. However, the relative abundance of specific polymers can differ. For example, Trihadiningrum et al. (2023) in Mojokerto landfill, Indonesia, found that the dominant polymers in landfill leachate were PE, PS, polyamide (PA), and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), as well as cellophane, which may derive from food and medical packaging. PE and PS microplastics were reported in the above-mentioned study, and this study suggests a shared reliance on packaging plastics across different regions. In Kaunas County, Lithuania, Sholokhova et al. ( 2023 ) found that PE (44 to 53%) and PP (24 to 30%) dominated landfill refuse soil samples, with additional contributions from PS, PA, polyester, and PVC. Similarly, Shirazi et al. (2023) in Iran reported LDPE (60.5%), PP (18.4%), and PS (16.1%) as the main polymers in landfill refuse soil. These values, while varying in magnitude, show that polyolefins (PE and PP) dominate across various landfills globally, largely due to their global use in consumer goods, flexibility, and resistance to degradation. In the Gandhinagar dumpsite, the combined proportion of PE types (HDPE and LDPE) and PP totals over 46%, which aligns with these findings. Other studies from Asia support this dominance. Nayahi et al. (2022) identified PP and PE as major polymers in controlled and open dumpsite soils (or Topsoil of dumpsites) in Thailand. Huang et al. ( 2022 ) reported that PE, PP, and PS made up nearly 70% of all microplastics found in Shanghai landfill refuse soil, while Wan et al. (2022) observed PE (29.8%), PP (19.4%), and PET (7.9%) in both landfill soil and leachate from Guangdong Province. These compositions further support the conclusion that polyolefins and styrenic polymers are globally persistent in waste dumped at landfills due to their volume in packaging waste and long degradation time. In leachate-specific studies, Sun et al. ( 2021 ) found PE (33%) and PP (32.4%) as predominant polymers in Suzhou landfill, China, mirroring the Gandhinagar findings despite matrix differences. Nurhasanah et al. (2021) in Indonesia reported a slightly more varied distribution with PE (18.68%), PP (16.48%), and PS (13.19%), while Xu et al. ( 2020 ) identified PP (40%), PA (36%), and rayon (18%), reflecting textile and synthetic fiber inputs. The large dataset by He et al. ( 2019 ) across four Chinese cities’ landfills leachate confirmed the widespread dominance of PE (34.94%) and PP (34.94%), followed by lesser amounts of PS, PET, PVC, ABS, and PU, closely resembling the polymer profile observed in Gandhinagar. The study detected rarer polymers such as polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) and PTFE, while the PTFE presence identified in the current study suggests that high-performance industrial plastics, although present in lower concentrations, still contribute to long-term contamination. Overall, the polymer spectrum observed in the topsoil of the recovered land at the Gandhinagar dumpsite is broadly consistent with international findings. The dominance of polyolefins and styrenics not only indicates their widespread use and resistance to environmental degradation but also reflects the lack of effective segregation and recycling infrastructure in many urban areas. The presence of polymers like ABS, PU, and PTFE highlights the mixing of technical and electronic waste into municipal dumpsites, which may pose greater environmental and ecotoxicological risks due to their additive content and chemical resistance. Detection and Quantification of Di-n-butyl Phthalate DBP, a commonly used plasticizer that is reported as an endocrine-disrupting compound, was found in topsoil samples of the recovered land at Gandhinagar City MSW dumpsite and highlights the chemical aspects of plastic dumping and microplastic pollution. In this study, the quantitative determination of DBP was carried out using HPLC. A standard stock solution of DBP with a concentration of 10 mg/L was prepared, and a calibration curve was established using a series of working standards. The calibration curve shows good linearity with a regression coefficient of 0.9961. was used to quantify DBP in the soil samples accurately. The retention time for DBP during HPLC analysis was 5.5 minutes. The concentration of DBP detected in the dumpsite soil was 1.32 ± 0.2 mg/kg. This finding indicates notable contamination, reflecting the degradation of plastic materials such as PS, Nylon, LDPE, HDPE, ABS, PU, PTFE, and PP, and the leaching of chemical additives over time. When compared to studies conducted elsewhere, DBP levels in Gandhinagar appear to be low. For instance, Mohammadi et al. ( 2023 ) reported that DBP concentrations range from 0.85 to 10.1 mg/kg in organic solid waste from the Bushehr port landfill in Iran, which falls below the average reported in Gandhinagar. In contrast, Swati et al. ( 2008 ) recorded significantly elevated DBP concentrations in fresh MSW, with values ranging from 196.2 to 6932.44 mg/kg, and in mined MSW from Chennai dumpsites, ranging from 264.85 to 1122.94 mg/kg. These exceptionally high values may be attributed to more extensive use of DBP-containing materials or higher accumulation of industrial waste fractions in those locations, possibly due to different analytical methodologies or waste characteristics. In the context of aqueous environments, particularly landfill leachate, the concentration of DBP is generally lower due to dilution and limited water solubility and mobility of phthalates. For example, Liu et al. (2020) found DBP concentrations in Wuhan, China, leachate ranging from 0.00727 to 0.01543 mg/L, while Kotowska et al. ( 2020 ) reported even lower levels in leachates from eleven Polish MSW landfills, between 0.00003 and 0.0005 mg/L. Seasonal monitoring by Mohammadi et al. ( 2022 ) in Bushehr port, Iran, further highlighted the variability of DBP leachate content, with average values ranging from 0.00069 ± 0.00009 mg/L in winter to 0.00275 ± 0.001123 mg/L in fall, influenced by rainfall, temperature, and landfill age. Although significantly lower than solid waste concentrations/concentrations found in soil, these values confirm DBP’s potential mobility and transport from solid matrices into the aqueous phase, posing risks to groundwater and nearby aquatic ecosystems. While not as extreme as some of the highest recorded concentrations, the DBP level in the topsoil of recovered soil still raises concern, especially considering its persistence, bioaccumulation potential, and toxicity. It is an early indicator of chemical leaching from plastics/microplastics into the topsoil of the recovered land. These findings support the necessity of including phthalate monitoring as part of landfill risk assessment frameworks and highlight the broader implications of plastic additive migration into terrestrial and aquatic systems, especially in urban areas lacking engineered containment or treatment solutions. Conclusion This study provides one of the first insights into post-biomining microplastic contamination in recovered soils, emphasizing the hidden risks that persist even after biooming of legacy waste accumulated in the dumpsite. The findings reveal an average concentration of 113.64 ± 9.91 × 10³ MPs/kg in topsoil, with marked spatial variability and localized hotspots. Fragments were the predominant morphology, followed by fibers, while the majority of particles were small-sized (0.2–1.0 mm). ATR-FTIR analysis identified HDPE, LDPE, ABS, and PP as the dominant polymers, reflecting advanced degradation of plastic waste under prolonged environmental exposure. In addition, the detection of di-n-butyl phthalate (1.32 ± 0.2 mg/kg) highlights the co-occurrence of chemical additives that may exacerbate ecological and human health risks. This study provides one of the first insights into post-biomining microplastic contamination in recovered soil, emphasizing the hidden risks that persist even after dumpsite bimining remediation of legacy waste. The complex mixture of physical and chemical contaminants underscores the necessity of post-biomining monitoring, stronger waste management frameworks, and evidence-based policy interventions to minimize long-term risks and ensure the safe reuse of recovered land. Declarations Funding This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. References Adjama, I., Dave, H., 2025. Tackling microplastic contamination in sewage sludge: Optimizing organic matter degradation, quantifying microplastic presence, and evaluating ecological risks for sustainable agriculture. Sci. Total Environ. 974, 179201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.179201 Adjama, I., Dave, H., Amen, E., 2024a. Bibliometric analysis and review of direct factors implicating the impact of nano and microplastics on crop health and development. Plant Nano Biol. 9, 100083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plana.2024.100083 Adjama, I., Dave, H., Balarabe, B.Y., Masiyambiri, V., Marycleopha, M., 2024b. Microplastics in dairy products and human breast milk: Contamination status and greenness analysis of available analytical methods. J. Hazard. Mater. Lett. 5, 100120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hazl.2024.100120 Bharath, K.M., A.L. Muthulakshmi, Usha Natesan, 2022. Microplastic contamination around the landfills: Distribution, characterization and threats: A review - ScienceDirect [WWW Document]. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468584422000976?via%3Dihub (accessed 8.6.23). Billings, A., Carter, H., Cross, R.K., Jones, K.C., Pereira, M.G., Spurgeon, D.J., 2023. Co-occurrence of macroplastics, microplastics, and legacy and emerging plasticisers in UK soils. Sci. Total Environ. 880, 163258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163258 Chakraborty, P., Sampath, S., Mukhopadhyay, M., Selvaraj, S., Bharat, G.K., Nizzetto, L., 2019. Baseline investigation on plasticizers, bisphenol A, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heavy metals in the surface soil of the informal electronic waste recycling workshops and nearby open dumpsites in Indian metropolitan cities. Environ. Pollut. 248, 1036–1045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.11.010 Chen, Y., Leng, Y., Liu, X., Wang, J., 2020. Microplastic pollution in vegetable farmlands of suburb Wuhan, central China. Environ. Pollut. 257, 113449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113449 Cowger, W., Gray, A., Christiansen, S.H., DeFrond, H., Deshpande, A.D., Hemabessiere, L., Lee, E., Mill, L., Munno, K., Ossmann, B.E., Pittroff, M., Rochman, C., Sarau, G., Tarby, S., Primpke, S., 2020. Critical Review of Processing and Classification Techniques for Images and Spectra in Microplastic Research. Appl. Spectrosc. 74, 989–1010. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003702820929064 Datta, M., Somani, M., Ramana, G.V., Sreekrishnan, T.R., 2021. Feasibility of re-using soil-like material obtained from mining of old MSW dumps as an earth-fill and as compost. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 147, 477–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2020.09.051 De Marchi, E., Pigliafreddo, S., Banterle, A., Parolini, M., Cavaliere, A., 2020. Plastic packaging goes sustainable: An analysis of consumer preferences for plastic water bottles. Environ. Sci. Policy 114, 305–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.08.014 Deng, M., Han, X., Ge, J., Liang, X., Du, B., Li, J., Zeng, L., 2021. Prevalence of phthalate alternatives and monoesters alongside traditional phthalates in indoor dust from a typical e-waste recycling area: Source elucidation and co-exposure risk. J. Hazard. Mater. 413, 125322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125322 Ding, Y., Zhao, Jun, Liu, J.-W., Zhou, J., Cheng, L., Zhao, Jia, Shao, Z., Iris, Ç., Pan, B., Li, X., Hu, Z.-T., 2021. A review of China’s municipal solid waste (MSW) and comparison with international regions: Management and technologies in treatment and resource utilization. J. Clean. Prod. 293, 126144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126144 Dokl, M., Copot, A., Krajnc, D., Fan, Y.V., Vujanović, A., Aviso, K.B., Tan, R.R., Kravanja, Z., Čuček, L., 2024. Global projections of plastic use, end-of-life fate and potential changes in consumption, reduction, recycling and replacement with bioplastics to 2050. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 51, 498–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2024.09.025 Ghorbaninejad Fard Shirazi, M.M., Shekoohiyan, S., Moussavi, G., Heidari, M., 2023a. Microplastics and mesoplastics as emerging contaminants in Tehran landfill soils: The distribution and induced-ecological risk. Environ. Pollut. 324, 121368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2023.121368 Ghorbaninejad Fard Shirazi, M.M., Shekoohiyan, S., Moussavi, G., Heidari, M., 2023b. Microplastics and mesoplastics as emerging contaminants in Tehran landfill soils: The distribution and induced-ecological risk. Environ. Pollut. 324, 121368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2023.121368 Ghosh, N., Sau, D., Hazra, T., Debsarkar, A., 2025. Extraction and characterization of microplastics in biomined good earth fractions: assessment of urban and suburban landfill sites, India. Environ. Monit. Assess. 197, 505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-025-13950-6 Goli, V.S.N.S., Singh, D.N., 2023. Extraction and characterization of microplastics in Landfill-Mined-Soil-like-Fractions: A novel methodology. Chem. Eng. J. 452, 139217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2022.139217 Hamdan, A., Panda, S., Jain, M.S., Raj, V., Mathew, S., 2025. Assessing municipal solid waste in Indian smart cities: A path towards Waste-to-Energy. Heliyon 11, e42770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e42770 Haritwal, D.K., Singh, P., Ramana, G.V., Datta, M., 2024a. Microplastic migration from landfill-mined soil through earth filling operations and ecological risk assessment: a case study in New Delhi, India. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 31, 65002–65021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-35545-3 Haritwal, D.K., Singh, P., Ramana, G.V., Datta, M., 2024b. Microplastic migration from landfill-mined soil through earth filling operations and ecological risk assessment: a case study in New Delhi, India. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 31, 65002–65021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-35545-3 Hartmann, C., Lomako, I., Schachner, C., El Said, E., Abert, J., Satrapa, V., Kaiser, A.-M., Walch, H., Köppel, S., 2024. Assessment of microplastics in human stool: A pilot study investigating the potential impact of diet-associated scenarios on oral microplastics exposure. Sci. Total Environ. 951, 175825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.175825 He, P., Chen, L., Shao, L., Zhang, H., Lü, F., 2019. Municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill: A source of microplastics? -Evidence of microplastics in landfill leachate. Water Res. 159, 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.04.060 Hou, Q., Zhen, M., Qian, H., Nie, Y., Bai, X., Xia, T., Laiq Ur Rehman, M., Li, Q., Ju, M., 2021. Upcycling and catalytic degradation of plastic wastes. Cell Rep. Phys. Sci. 2, 100514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrp.2021.100514 Huang, Q., Cheng, Z., Yang, C., Wang, H., Zhu, N., Cao, X., Lou, Z., 2022. Booming microplastics generation in landfill: An exponential evolution process under temporal pattern. Water Res. 223, 119035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2022.119035 Joseph, K., ESAKKU, S., Palanivelu, K., Selvam, A., 2003. Studies on landfill mining at solid waste dumpsites in India. Proc. Sard. 03 Ninth Int. Landfill Symp. Jung, M.R., Horgen, F.D., Orski, S.V., Rodriguez C., V., Beers, K.L., Balazs, G.H., Jones, T.T., Work, T.M., Brignac, K.C., Royer, S.-J., Hyrenbach, K.D., Jensen, B.A., Lynch, J.M., 2018. Validation of ATR FT-IR to identify polymers of plastic marine debris, including those ingested by marine organisms. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 127, 704–716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.12.061 Kabir, M.S., Wang, H., Luster-Teasley, S., Zhang, L., Zhao, R., 2023. Microplastics in landfill leachate: Sources, detection, occurrence, and removal. Environ. Sci. Ecotechnology 16, 100256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ese.2023.100256 Kibria, Md.G., Masuk, N.I., Safayet, R., Nguyen, H.Q., Mourshed, M., 2023. Plastic Waste: Challenges and Opportunities to Mitigate Pollution and Effective Management. Int. J. Environ. Res. 17, 20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41742-023-00507-z Kotowska, U., Kapelewska, J., Sawczuk, R., 2020. Occurrence, removal, and environmental risk of phthalates in wastewaters, landfill leachates, and groundwater in Poland. Environ. Pollut. 267, 115643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115643 Kumar, A., Agrawal, A., 2020. Recent trends in solid waste management status, challenges, and potential for the future Indian cities – A review. Curr. Res. Environ. Sustain. 2, 100011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsust.2020.100011 Liu, H., Liang, Y., Zhang, D., Wang, C., Liang, H., Cai, H., 2010. Impact of MSW landfill on the environmental contamination of phthalate esters. Waste Manag. 30, 1569–1576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.01.040 Liu, Q., Chen, D., Wu, J., Yin, G., Lin, Q., Zhang, M., Hu, H., 2018. Determination of phthalate esters in soil using a quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, and safe method followed by GC-MS. J. Sep. Sci. 41, 1812–1820. https://doi.org/10.1002/jssc.201701126 MCG, 2019. Solid Waste Management – Gandhinagar Municipal Corporation. URL https://gandhinagarmunicipal.com/solid-waste-management / (accessed 9.26.25). Meena, M.D., Dotaniya, M.L., Meena, B.L., Rai, P.K., Antil, R.S., Meena, H.S., Meena, L.K., Dotaniya, C.K., Meena, V.S., Ghosh, A., Meena, K.N., Singh, A.K., Meena, V.D., Moharana, P.C., Meena, S.K., Srinivasarao, Ch., Meena, A.L., Chatterjee, S., Meena, D.K., Prajapat, M., Meena, R.B., 2023. Municipal solid waste: Opportunities, challenges and management policies in India: A review. Waste Manag. Bull. 1, 4–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wmb.2023.04.001 Mohammadi, A., Malakootian, M., Dobaradaran, S., Hashemi, M., Jaafarzadeh, N., 2022. Occurrence, seasonal distribution, and ecological risk assessment of microplastics and phthalate esters in leachates of a landfill site located near the marine environment: Bushehr port, Iran as a case. Sci. Total Environ. 842, 156838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156838 Mohammadi, A., Malakootian, M., Dobaradaran, S., Hashemi, M., Jaafarzadeh, N., De-la-Torre, G.E., 2023. Occurrence and ecological risks of microplastics and phthalate esters in organic solid wastes: In a landfill located nearby the Persian Gulf. Chemosphere 332, 138910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.138910 Mohan, S., Joseph, C.P., 2021. Potential Hazards due to Municipal Solid Waste Open Dumping in India. J. Indian Inst. Sci. 101, 523–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41745-021-00242-4 Mohan, S., Joseph, C.P., 2020. Biomining: An Innovative and Practical Solution for Reclamation of Open Dumpsite, in: Kalamdhad, A.S. (Ed.), Recent Developments in Waste Management. Springer, Singapore, pp. 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0990-2_12 Naaz, I., Thengane, S.K., Arora, P., Thirumoorthy, G., Singal, S.K., 2025. Waste-to-energy pathways for fresh and legacy waste management: A case study in India. Energy Nexus 19, 100472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nexus.2025.100472 Nayanathara Thathsarani Pilapitiya, P.G.C., Ratnayake, A.S., 2024. The world of plastic waste: A review. Clean. Mater. 11, 100220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clema.2024.100220 Net, S., Sempéré, R., Delmont, A., Paluselli, A., Ouddane, B., 2015. Occurrence, Fate, Behavior and Ecotoxicological State of Phthalates in Different Environmental Matrices. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 4019–4035. https://doi.org/10.1021/es505233b Nurhasanah, Cordova, M.R., Riani, E., 2021. Micro- and mesoplastics release from the Indonesian municipal solid waste landfill leachate to the aquatic environment: Case study in Galuga Landfill Area, Indonesia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 163, 111986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.111986 Parrodi, J.C.H., Höllen, D., Pomberger, R., 2018. CHARACTERIZATION OF FINE FRACTIONS FROM LANDFILL MINING: A REVIEW OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS. Detritus 46. https://doi.org/10.31025/2611-4135/2018.13663 Periyasamy, A.P., Tehrani-Bagha, A., 2022. A review on microplastic emission from textile materials and its reduction techniques. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 199, 109901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2022.109901 Pironti, C., Ricciardi, M., Motta, O., Miele, Y., Proto, A., Montano, L., 2021. Microplastics in the Environment: Intake through the Food Web, Human Exposure and Toxicological Effects. Toxics 9, 224. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics9090224 Schnepf, U., von Moers-Meßmer, M.A.L., Brümmer, F., 2023. A practical primer for image-based particle measurements in microplastic research. Microplastics Nanoplastics 3, 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43591-023-00064-4 Sekar, V., Sundaram, B., 2023. Preliminary evidence of microplastics in landfill leachate, Hyderabad, India. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 175, 369–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2023.05.070 Shi, X., Chen, Z., Wu, L., Wei, W., Ni, B.-J., 2023. Microplastics in municipal solid waste landfills: Detection, formation and potential environmental risks. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 31, 100433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2022.100433 Shi, Y., Yi, L., Du, G., Hu, X., Huang, Y., 2023. Visual characterization of microplastics in corn flour by near field molecular spectral imaging and data mining. Sci. Total Environ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160714 Sholokhova, A., Denafas, G., Ceponkus, J., Omelianenko, T., 2023. Microplastics in Landfill Bodies: Abundance, Spatial Distribution and Effect of Landfill Age. Sustainability 15, 5017. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065017 Singh, A., Chandel, M.K., 2023. Physicochemical and biological assessment of legacy waste for application as soil conditioner. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 30, 29699–29710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-24295-9 Su, Y., Zhang, Z., Wu, D., Zhan, L., Shi, H., Xie, B., 2019. Occurrence of microplastics in landfill systems and their fate with landfill age. Water Res. 164, 114968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.114968 Sun, J., Zhu, Z.-R., Li, W.-H., Yan, X., Wang, L.-K., Zhang, L., Jin, J., Dai, X., Ni, B.-J., 2021. Revisiting Microplastics in Landfill Leachate: Unnoticed Tiny Microplastics and Their Fate in Treatment Works. Water Res. 190, 116784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116784 Swati, M., Rema, T., Joseph, K., 2008. Hazardous organic compounds in urban municipal solid waste from a developing country. J. Hazard. Mater. 160, 213–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.02.111 Swati, Thakur, I.S., Vijay, V.K., Ghosh, P., 2019. Scenario of Landfilling in India: Problems, Challenges, and Recommendations, in: Handbook of Environmental Materials Management. Springer, Cham, pp. 321–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73645-7_167 Thaiyal Nayahi, N., Ou, B., Liu, Y., Janjaroen, D., 2022. Municipal solid waste sanitary and open landfills: Contrasting sources of microplastics and its fate in their respective treatment systems. J. Clean. Prod. 380, 135095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135095 Trihadiningrum, Y., Wilujeng, S.A., Tafaqury, R., Radita, D.R., Radityaningrum, A.D., 2023a. Evidence of microplastics in leachate of Randegan landfill, Mojokerto City, Indonesia, and its potential to pollute surface water. Sci. Total Environ. 874, 162207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162207 Trihadiningrum, Y., Wilujeng, S.A., Tafaqury, R., Radita, D.R., Radityaningrum, A.D., 2023b. Evidence of microplastics in leachate of Randegan landfill, Mojokerto City, Indonesia, and its potential to pollute surface water. Sci. Total Environ. 874, 162207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162207 Veerasingam, S., Ranjani, M., Venkatachalapathy, R., Bagaev, A., Mukhanov, V., Litvinyuk, D., Mugilarasan, M., Gurumoorthi, K., Guganathan, L., Aboobacker, V.M., Vethamony, P., 2021. Contributions of Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy in microplastic pollution research: A review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 2681–2743. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2020.1807450 Wan, Y., Chen, X., Liu, Q., Hu, H., Wu, C., Xue, Q., 2022a. Informal landfill contributes to the pollution of microplastics in the surrounding environment. Environ. Pollut. 293, 118586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.118586 Wan, Y., Chen, X., Liu, Q., Hu, H., Wu, C., Xue, Q., 2022b. Informal landfill contributes to the pollution of microplastics in the surrounding environment. Environ. Pollut. 293, 118586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.118586 Wang, Q., Lv, K.-N., Wang, A.-T., Liu, X., Yin, G., Wang, J., Du, X., Li, J., Yuan, G.-L., 2022. Release of phthalate esters from a local landfill in the Tibetan Plateau: Importance of soil particle-size specific association. Sci. Total Environ. 806, 151281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151281 Xu, Z., Sui, Q., Li, A., Sun, M., Zhang, L., Lyu, S., Zhao, W., 2020. How to detect small microplastics (20–100 µm) in freshwater, municipal wastewaters and landfill leachates? A trial from sampling to identification. Sci. Total Environ. 733, 139218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139218 Zhang, K., Hamidian, A.H., Tubić, A., Zhang, Y., Fang, J.K.H., Wu, C., Lam, P.K.S., 2021. Understanding plastic degradation and microplastic formation in the environment: A review. Environ. Pollut. 274, 116554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.116554 Zhou, C., Xu, W., Gong, Z., Fang, W., Cao, A., 2015. Characteristics and Fertilizer Effects of Soil-Like Materials from Landfill Mining. CLEAN – Soil Air Water 43, 940–947. https://doi.org/10.1002/clen.201400510 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8080128","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":548974895,"identity":"15b06123-6f7a-4965-8f41-b8897cada54d","order_by":0,"name":"Irédon Adjama","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Forensic Sciences University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Irédon","middleName":"","lastName":"Adjama","suffix":""},{"id":548974896,"identity":"822cceb2-f096-4331-ada4-da70b4f37e21","order_by":1,"name":"Shruti Patel","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Forensic Sciences University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Shruti","middleName":"","lastName":"Patel","suffix":""},{"id":548974897,"identity":"97d4b88b-ebd6-49e3-949d-86217779f34c","order_by":2,"name":"Harish Karthy","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Forensic Sciences University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Harish","middleName":"","lastName":"Karthy","suffix":""},{"id":548974899,"identity":"da80bc8c-5b9d-4be5-bb4c-1f390c24835e","order_by":3,"name":"Dhruvin Patel","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Forensic Sciences University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Dhruvin","middleName":"","lastName":"Patel","suffix":""},{"id":548974902,"identity":"53fbda5f-368b-407d-85b3-1c02e618f7d6","order_by":4,"name":"Hemen Dave","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Forensic Sciences University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hemen","middleName":"","lastName":"Dave","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-11-10 19:23:16","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8080128/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8080128/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":99877164,"identity":"68baa2fa-6cd3-4a15-bd4a-db812df544f8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-09 10:25:51","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1026713,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eStudy area indicating the sampling points of the topsoil\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8080128/v1/9072366d07325cb6c9055a7c.png"},{"id":99877167,"identity":"0bb7329b-2e53-41f3-ba9b-05eaf74b47ee","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-09 10:25:51","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":797285,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e(a) Number of microplastics detected in the topsoil of the recovered land at various sampling points; (b) Overall average number of microplastics.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8080128/v1/8afb1b93ff0653cd0ad772a7.png"},{"id":99877165,"identity":"869f66de-5dd5-445d-8da1-5a44843ecd09","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-09 10:25:51","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":946459,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e(a) Shape distribution of microplastics detected in the topsoil of the recovered land at various sampling points; (b) Overall average number of microplastics.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8080128/v1/a5b80047dd34adfcc828e37d.png"},{"id":99877170,"identity":"10a8f8de-3161-46b4-9c52-69057c6de42f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-09 10:25:52","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":913352,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e(a) Size distribution of microplastics detected in the topsoil of the recovered land at various sampling points; (b) Overall average number of microplastics.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8080128/v1/7fb7500e02bccf959f877dd5.png"},{"id":99877162,"identity":"cf6a4afa-7f93-4ec6-b3c4-2b6e48236b8c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-09 10:25:50","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1147892,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSample of a microplastic image detected\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8080128/v1/173e9d87959d57a09ecb5f1f.png"},{"id":100358198,"identity":"d175aabc-825f-4978-81b0-9af5d22b41b3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:20:43","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1620094,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSample of ATR-FTIR spectra of diverse microplastic polymers\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8080128/v1/cf8b86f9b1831d85b8ff5a69.png"},{"id":99877169,"identity":"eba06697-d641-4d9e-8ae7-95bf61d54067","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-09 10:25:51","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":2073445,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePolymer type distribution of various microplastics detected\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8080128/v1/047226d041b42b6960846cc5.png"},{"id":100377009,"identity":"790002f5-aeef-44bd-947d-cd800e97c478","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 08:46:41","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":10390561,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8080128/v1/c5686805-5597-46e7-a6f2-7fef43b4bc92.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Recovered but Polluted? Post-Biomining Monitoring of Microplastic Contamination in the Topsoil of the Recovered Land","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe rapid growth of urban populations and rising consumption patterns have led to the generation of large amounts of municipal solid waste (MSW), much of which has been historically dumped in open sites or landfills without appropriate treatment and management (Kumar and Agrawal, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Meena et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Over time, this accumulated, untreated MSW becomes legacy waste, a critical environmental challenge in many countries (Mohan and Joseph, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Legacy waste typically consists of a heterogeneous mixture of decomposed organics, plastics, metals, glass, textiles, and inert materials (Ghosh et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). In proportion, plastic waste materials constitute a significant portion of the total waste accumulated. For instance, plastic waste accounts for around 15% of the total MSW disposed of at Chinese dumpsites (Ding et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). This can be explained by the indispensable use of plastics in modern life due to their low cost, lightweight, versatility, and durability, which have become major contributors to this problem (De Marchi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Nayanathara and Ratnayake, 2024). Historically, in the year 1950, the use of plastic materials was estimated to be near 2\u0026nbsp;million tons; in 2015 and 2021, it was estimated to be 380 and 390.7\u0026nbsp;million tons, respectively (Dokl et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Kibria et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Sekar and Sundaram, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Nowadays, the yearly estimation of the global plastic usage is about 460\u0026nbsp;million tons. This massive usage of plastics is directly contributing to the generation of plastic waste again a weak recycling and management strategy. For instance, in 2015, the plastic waste generation reached 6300\u0026nbsp;million tons. Worldwide, the recycling capacity of plastic waste is estimated to be around 9%, 12% incineration, and the remianing 79% this plastic waste majorly accumulates at dumpsites as legacy waste over several years (Hartmann et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Hou et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe legacy waste is a prominent issue in developing countries, which face particular challenges in managing this growing burden due to poor source-level segregation, inefficient collection and transport systems, and the high costs of recycling or waste-to-energy conversion (Haritwal et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024a\u003c/span\u003e; Nayanathara and Ratnayake, 2024). Consequently, projections estimate that nearly 12,000\u0026nbsp;million metric tons of plastic waste will be accumulated in dumpsites as legacy waste by 2050 (Bharath et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Dokl et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Today, the legacy waste is not only occupying a large portion of land but also contributing to the emission of greenhouse gas, generating leachate containing heavy metals, metalloids, and persistent organic pollutants, which contaminate soil and nearby water bodies (Billings et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Datta et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Goli and Singh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Haritwal et al., 2024). In several developing nations, the legacy waste could accumulate in the dumpsite, exceeding a height of 50 meters, due to inadequate waste management strategies and pollution control systems (Datta et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe growing recognition of the environmental and health risks associated with legacy waste has accelerated the search for effective remediation technologies. Among these, biomining has emerged as a sustainable approach to reclaiming land occupied by legacy waste. This process not only mitigates the release of contaminants into the environment but also enables the recovery of valuable by-products. Technically, biomining involves firstly the biological treatment, which is the microbial decomposition and stabilization of legacy waste, followed the excavation and mechanical segregation to recover reusable resources such as metals, plastics, textiles, glass, and soil (Haritwal et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024a\u003c/span\u003e; Parrodi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe implementation of biomining technology plays a vital role in clearing the land occupied by legacy waste. Recent research has highlighted the potential of the soil recovered as a by-product of biomining to be used as an agricultural amendment. Studies have shown that this recovered soil can function as an effective fertilizer, enhancing crop growth, for example, in \u003cem\u003eImpatiens balsamina L.\u003c/em\u003e, and has even been recommended as a substitute for conventional compost (Joseph et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Singh and Chandel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Zhou et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). This promising outcome has driven large-scale biomining initiatives at more than 60 landfills in China, where the primary goals were clearing the occupied land and the recovery of by-products, particularly soil for agricultural use (Datta et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn India, MSW generation has reached approximately 62\u0026nbsp;million tons annually, with more than half disposed of at dumpsites, contributing to the accumulation of legacy waste (Hamdan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Of the total plastics produced in the country, only about 60% are recycled, while the remaining 40% enter dumpsites as part of MSW. It is estimated that 1,240 hectares of land are occupied by MSW dumping every year (Swati et al., 2019). To mitigate this growing challenge, the Government of India has promoted biomining as a potential strategy for the treating and recovering of valuable by-production from legacy waste and clearing the land occupied. In practice, several cities have already demonstrated the potential of this approach. For instance, Indore successfully transformed recovered land into a city forest by planting thousands of saplings, thereby creating a thriving public green space. Beyond ecological initiatives, recovered land also offers opportunities for urban and industrial development, including housing projects, commercial complexes, and other infrastructure projects that can ease the pressure on densely populated urban zones (Haritwal et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024b\u003c/span\u003e; Naaz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, concerns have emerged regarding the safety of this practice. Studies have reported that soils recovered from biomining often contain heavy metals and salts at concentrations exceeding the maximum permissible limits. As a result, their use as agricultural amendments could contribute to the accumulation and spread of these contaminants in agricultural ecosystems (Datta et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, considering that MSW typically contains 21 to 42% plastic waste (Su et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), the recovered soil from legacy was proven to be contaminated with microplastics. For instance, a recent study conducted at three dumpsites in New Delhi revealed that soils recovered from legacy waste biomining contained between 25,950 and 41,110 plastic particles per kilogram, with an average particle size of 0.4 mm (Haritwal et al., 2024). These particles are formed through the biological, physical, chemical, and mechanical degradation of plastic waste present in MSW over time, ultimately fragmenting into particles smaller than 5 mm called microplastics (Kabir et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; X. Shi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). However, the microplastic contamination in the topsoil of the recovered land is not being examined in any such study, and this is the first attempt to study the microplastic contamination in the topsoil of recovered land.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition to the release of microplastics resulting from the fragmentation of larger plastic debris, phthalate esters, major constituents of plastics, also pose significant environmental concerns (Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). These compounds can account for up to 60% of the total plastic weight, as they are not covalently bound to the polymer matrix and are therefore easily released into the surrounding environment (Net et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). High concentrations of phthalate esters have been reported worldwide; for instance, levels up to 1.3 \u0026micro;g/g were detected in deep soils from a municipal solid waste landfill in China (Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, in Poland, leakage of landfill leachate resulted in concentrations of 103 \u0026micro;g/L of phthalate esters in adjacent groundwater (Kotowska et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Among the detected compounds, di-n-butyl phthalate (DBP) is the most frequently observed and has been extensively documented for its endocrine-disrupting properties, with potential teratogenic, mutagenic, and carcinogenic effects. Consequently, further investigation into the persistence of residual contaminants, such as phthalate compounds, in biomined and recovered land is necessary.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis highlights the importance of post-biomining monitoring of topsoil for such contaminations and to ensure that the recovered land is environmentally safe for human health over the long term. Against this backdrop, the present study aims to quantify, characterize, and identify microplastic contamination in the topsoil of land recovered by biomining of legacy waste at the Gandhinagar dumpsite. Furthermore, previous studies have reported elevated concentrations of phthalates in dumpsite soils, possibly sourced from microplastics, as they have a large surface area due to their smaller size (Chakraborty et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Deng et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, in addition to assessing microplastic contamination, this study also carried out a preliminary investigation of DBP, a common plastic additive used here as an indicator of chemical leaching from plastic waste within the remediated legacy dumpsite.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eMaterials and equipment\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study utilized several reagents such as, Methanol (99.9%, HPLC grade) (Advent), Acetonitrile (99.9%, HPLC grade) (Advent), sulphuric acid (98%, AR grade) (Central Drug House Pvt. Ltd.), Ferrous sulphate heptahydrate (98%, AR grade) (Sisco Research Laboratories PVT. Ltd.), Hydroden peroxide (30% w/v) (Central Drug House Pvt. Ltd.), Sodium chloride (AR grade) (Central Drug House Pvt. Ltd.), Magnesium sulphate (98%) (Sisco Research Laboratories PVT. Ltd.), Dibutyl Phthalate (98%) (Sisco Research Laboratories PVT. Ltd.). Doubled-distilled water was used to prepare all mixtures and to wash microplastics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, borosilicate glass containers were used to collect the dumpsite soil and prevent contamination. The samples were dried in the hot air oven, Model: LLO-325GP, Make: LABTOP. For the weighing of the sample, we use a precision balance, Model: ATY224, Make: SHIMADZU. A magnetic stirrer, Model: 2MLH, Make: REMI, was used to mix the sample. During the extraction of microplastics, at the separation level, a vacuum filtration setup equipped with a glass fiber filter, MN GF-2, Item No.: 4120047, featuring a 47 mm diameter and an approximate pore size of 0.5 \u0026micro;m. The microplastics visualisation was performed under a stereomicroscope Model: Stemi 2000-C, and their chemical composition determination was performed using Attenuated Total Reflectance-Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy, ATR-FTIR, Model: Jasco-4700. The ultrasonicator used was from LABMAN, LMUC-3. A Jasco Isocratic HPLC 2000 with a Reverse Phase C-18 Column was used for the analysis of DBP.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudy area and sample collection of the topsoil recovered land\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHistorically, Gandhinagar city was created in the late 1960s. Gandhinagar is a city located 23 km north of Ahmedabad. Gandhinagar is called the capital of Gujarat, and is known as a green city in the 1970s of the State and is called India's tree capital. The MSW in Gandhinagar is managed by the Gandhinagar Municipal Corporation. It's estimated that the city generates about 95 metric tons of solid waste daily. Due to the weak management capacity, a small part of the waste generated is segregated and processed for compost, biogas and methane production. The remaining of the MSW is dumped at a dumpsite located at Sector 30. According to the report of the Gandhinagar Municipal Corporation, it is estimated that in 2016, 85000 metric tons of legacy waste (MCG, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). In recent years, due to the health risk and environmental pollution caused by the legacy waste, such as the creation of breeding grounds for pests, generation of leachate that contaminates water bodies, emission of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change, generation of hazardous gases like methane and hydrogen sulfide that cause respiratory issues, the risk of uncontrollable fires, and soil and air pollution from decomposing materials and poisonous smoke and the occupation of significant land space and probilitirs of cause slope failures, the Gandhinagar Municipal Corporation, has intiated the the implementation of booming of a legacy to reclaim the occupied land by microbial stabilisation of waste, it excavation and separation of in byproducts (Ghosh et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Mohan and Joseph, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The land recovered after biomining legacy waste can be utilised for sustainable urban development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the top of this recovered land, a samples of topsoil were collected using a stratified sampling method. A total of twelve sampling points were randomly selected across different strata within the site (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e), and triplicate samples were taken from each point. At each location, three subsamples of 200 grams each were collected within a 1 to 2-meter radius using a cylindrical stainless-steel sampler to a depth of 10 cm. The collected soil was placed in glass containers, transported to the laboratory, and air-dried at 40\u0026deg;C for one week. Once dried, the samples were sieved through a 9.5 mm mesh and then stored at 4\u0026deg;C for subsequent analysis..\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eProcess of microplastic extraction and identification\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA 150 g homogeneous subsample was obtained using the cone and quartering method at each sampling point from the stored soil samples. These subsamples were then individually subjected to microplastics analysis, which was conducted in four main steps: first, the digestion of organic matter present in the sample; second, the separation of microplastics from the sample matrix; third, the filtration of the separated microplastics; and finally, the characterization of the extracted microplastics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eDigestion of organic matter\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eA 50 g sample of the collected soil was mixed with 200 mL of distilled water in a 500 mL beaker and stirred at 150 rpm for 1 hour using a magnetic stirrer. The homogenized soil suspension was then subjected to the Fenton reaction, following the procedure described by Adjama \u0026amp; Dave (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe pH of the solution was first adjusted to approximately 3 by adding sulfuric acid (H₂SO₄). The Fenton reaction was initiated by adding ferrous ions (Fe\u0026sup2;⁺) (In the form of FeSO\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e.7H\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO) at a concentration of 1 molar equivalent, followed by the addition of hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) at a concentration of 2 molar equivalents. The reaction was allowed to proceed at room temperature for 6 hours to ensure complete degradation of organic matter.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eDensity separation and filtration of microplastics\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eSodium chloride (NaCl) was added to the digested soil suspension until the mixture reached a density of approximately 1.2 g/mL.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe mixture was stirred for 30 minutes using a magnetic stirrer to facilitate the separation process. After stirring, the solution was carefully transferred into a separating funnel to allow the inorganic particles to settle. Following a settling period of 5 hours, the supernatant, containing the microplastics, was gently separated from the heavier soil particles. The suspended microplastics in the supernatant were then filtered using a glass fiber filter (GF-2, pore size: 0.5 \u0026micro;m) with the help of a vacuum filtration assembly. The filter papers were dried in an oven at 40\u0026deg;C for 3 hours and subsequently stored in a desiccator for further analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003ePhysical characterization\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eA stereo microscope (Stemi 2000-C) was used to observe and capture images of microplastics retained on filter paper. The collected images were examined to count the number of microplastics and to determine the shape attributes of each particle. Furthermore, Image-J Software was used to measure microplastic size. In the software, the equivalent diameter of microplastics in the shape of a fragment was calculated using the method of Schnepf et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), and for microplastics in fiber-shaped size was referred to as the geodesic lines, as developed by Cowger et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) and Schnepf et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eChemical characterization\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe chemical characterization of the microplastics (MPs) was carried out using Attenuated Total Reflection Fourier-Transform Infrared (ATR-FTIR) spectroscopy. Spectral data were collected over a wavenumber range of 500 cm⁻\u0026sup1; to 4000 cm⁻\u0026sup1; (32 Scans) at a resolution of 4cm⁻\u0026sup1;. Each obtained spectrum was compared with reference data published by Veerasingam et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) to identify the chemical composition of the microplastics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eProcess of Di-n-butyl phthalate extraction and quantification\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom the stored homogeneous subsample soil samples (referred to in subsection 2.2), a single homogenized sample was derived and air-dried. This sample was subsequently stored at 4\u0026deg;C until further analysis. Quantitative analysis of DBP was performed using the ultrasonic-based extraction method given below.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe extraction method of DBP was adopted from a previous study with modifications (Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Briefly, 10g of homogenized soil was placed in a glass beaker with 10 ml of distilled water. Then, a 30 ml mixture of extraction solvent, n-hexane/acetone (1:1), and NaCl was added to the soil sample. Ultrasonic extraction was carried out for 20 minutes, and the 10 ml supernatant was transferred to a 50 ml centrifuge tube. The tube was centrifuged for 5 minutes at 4000 rpm. Next, 2 g MgSO\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e was added and sonicated for 5 minutes; after that, the mixture was centrifuged at 4000 rpm for 5 minutes. Then, 5 ml of supernatant was taken for HPLC analysis. The recovery obtained for the extraction method used was 98%.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eDetection of DBP\u003c/b\u003e: HPLC was used to detect phthalates from soil samples after extraction. The supernatant solution was filtered using a syringe filter (Pore size: 22 \u0026micro;m). A HPLC with a Reverse Phase C-18 Column was used for analysis, and DBP was detected at a wavelength of 230 nm with a UV/VIS Detector. The column was run with a mobile phase mixture of 90% acetonitrile and 10% HPLC-grade water at a 1.0 mL/min flow rate.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExperimental quality control\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExperimental quality was ensured by avoiding plastic materials throughout the process, from soil sampling to the final extraction, visualization, identification of microplastics, and the extraction and analysis of DBP. All glassware and other materials used in this experiment were washed correctly, dried in an oven at 200\u0026deg;C overnight, and covered with aluminium foil before being stored in a dedicated space. This practice was implemented to prevent any potential deposition of microplastics and dust. Distilled water was exclusively used for sample dilution during the experiment. The distilled water and NaCl solution were meticulously filtered through a 1.2 \u0026micro;m pore size filter to prevent any external contamination by microplastics. Cotton laboratory coats and clean gloves were worn throughout the experiment to maintain a controlled environment. Furthermore, the filters used for the microplastics filtration were examined under a stereomicroscope, ensuring their cleanliness and suitability were confirmed before use.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe datasets on microplastic abundance, shape, size distribution, and polymer composition were organized, processed, and visualized using OriginPro 2025b. Statistical analyses were conducted in R software (version 4.4.1) to compare mean values across different sampling sites and parameters. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to assess significant differences among groups, followed by Tukey\u0026rsquo;s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) post-hoc test to identify specific pairwise variations where applicable. Results were expressed as mean\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;standard deviation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results and discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eMicroplastic abundance\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analysis of microplastic contamination in topsoil across twelve sampling points at the recovered land of the dumpsite in Gandhinagar City, India, revealed a notable spatial variation in microplastic concentration (Refer to Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003ea), likely driven by differences in waste disposal activities, topography, and site exposure. The overall average microplastic abundance recorded across all points was 113.64\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;9.91 \u0026times; 10\u0026sup3; MPs/kg (Refer to Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eb), indicating a generally high level of microplastic pollution with moderate variability (Refer to Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eb). Among the individual points, Point 10 showed the highest concentration at 128.33\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.51 \u0026times; 10\u0026sup3; MPs/kg, indicating a consistent and significant accumulation of plastic-rich waste in that area, possibly due to frequent dumping or its proximity to high-traffic zones. This was followed closely by Point 7, with 125.33\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;7.02 \u0026times; 10\u0026sup3; MPs/kg, and Point 4, with 124.00\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.36 \u0026times; 10\u0026sup3; MPs/kg, both of which reflect potential hotspots for plastic deposition. Point 12 also showed a high level, i.e., 118.33\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.51\u0026times;10\u0026sup3; MPs/kg, indicating a considerable contamination. Other points, such as Point 5, Point 6, and Point 9, having respectively 116.67\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.04 \u0026times; 10\u0026sup3; MPs/kg, 117.67\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.08 \u0026times; 10\u0026sup3; MPs/kg, and 114.67\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;6.43 \u0026times; 10\u0026sup3; MPs/kg, showed slightly above-average concentrations, suggesting moderate but consistent microplastic input, potentially due to their proximity to mixed waste deposits. Points 2 and 11 contain 111.33\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.73\u0026times; 10\u0026sup3; MPs/kg and 103.67\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5.13\u0026times; 10\u0026sup3; MPs/kg, respectively. In contrast, Point 8 recorded the lowest concentration of microplastics at 99.67\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5.69\u0026times; 10\u0026sup3; MPs/kg, indicating fluctuating deposition patterns or localized clean-up efforts. Similarly, Point 1, with 102.67\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.08 \u0026times; 10\u0026sup3; MPs/kg, and Point 3, with 101.33\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.06 \u0026times; 10\u0026sup3; MPs/kg, displayed lower concentrations with minimal variation, which could be due to recent dumping activity and more uniform pollution levels, likely from older or less plastic-rich waste.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn comparison to the global research findings, the current study, the post-monitoring of the recovered land revealed a notably high concentration of microplastics in soil samples, with an average of 113.64\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;9.91 \u0026times; 10\u0026sup3; MPs/kg of soil. This value is significant compared to similar studies conducted across various global landfill and waste disposal sites. For direct comparisons, one must consider differences in sample matrices, such as leachate versus solid waste or surface versus Topsoil or soil collected from depth. The concentration ranges offer insight into the degree and nature of microplastic pollution associated with landfills and dumpsites. For example, studies on landfill leachate, which represents the water percolation/runoff through the waste mass, generally reported lower microplastic concentrations. Trihadiningrum et al. (2023) identified 9.00\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.85 particles/L in leachate from the landfill in Mojokerto, Indonesia. Similarly, Zhang et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) and Wan et al. (2022) reported 1.2 mircoplastics/L and 3\u0026ndash;25 mciroplastics/L in leachate from landfills in Shanghai and Guangdong Province, China. Although leachate represents a diluted medium compared to soil, its contamination levels still reflect the degree of plastic fragmentation and migration within landfill systems. The higher concentration of microplastics in the Gandhinagar soil highlights how solid matrices, particularly the Topsoil, act as long-term microplastic reservoirs, capturing persistent large fragments and fine degraded particles.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contrast, studies analyzing landfill refuse soil, typically sampled from buried or degraded solid waste layers, reported a wider range of microplastic concentrations, some of which align more closely with the findings of this study. For instance, Shirazi et al. (2023) found 863\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;681 particles/kg of soil at the Kahrizak landfill in Iran, which, although it is lower than the findings reported in this study, demonstrates comparable magnitudes when accounting for variability. Similarly, Wan et al. (2022) documented exceptionally high values ranging from 590 to 103,080 items/kg and 570 to 14,200 items/kg of landfill refuse soil in Guangdong, China, depending on sampling depth and plastic exposure. Such broad ranges indicate the influence of localized waste input, waste composition, site age, and plastic degradation conditions on microplastic generation and accumulation in soil. Some of the highest concentrations of microplastics in solid matrices were reported by Huang et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), who identified 71.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;17.7 to 653.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;191.5 particles/g of plastic waste deposits at a landfill in Shanghai. When converted, these values amount to tens to hundreds of thousands of particles per kilogram, exceeding even the concentrations found in recovered land topsoil at the dumpsite of Gandhinagar. However, it is important to note that Huang\u0026rsquo;s study focused on plastic-rich waste fractions (Huang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contrast, the current study examined Topsoil from an open dumpsite, making the comparison an indicator of background plastic pollution rather than targeted waste fraction analysis. Meanwhile, Sholokhova et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) reported 55,000 items/kg in landfill soil from Kaunas et al. (2020) counted 291\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;91 particles/L in landfill leachate from Shanghai, adding further diversity to the global dataset. Although the findings of this study don\u0026rsquo;t exceed all reported concentrations, it falls within the upper-middle range of findings reported in various studies carried out across the world, especially about unmanaged or semi-managed waste disposal zones where plastic waste tends to accumulate with little to no mitigation. In Southeast Asia, Nayahi et al. (2022) compared microplastic concentration in leachate from controlled landfills and open dumpsites in Thailand and observed 8.80 MPs/L in controlled sites and 9.93 MPs/L in open dumping areas, again reinforcing the trend that less managed facilities accumulate higher microplastic loads over time. Interestingly, the soil microplastic concentration reported in this study is significantly higher than these values, even though both regions share similar climatic and socio-environmental realities. Overall, this comparative analysis demonstrates that the recovered topsoil from Gandhinagar\u0026rsquo;s dumpsite can be a potential diffusion point of microplastics into the surrounding environment. Although microplastic concentrations in leachate and refuse soil can vary considerably due to differences in sampling methods, site conditions, and waste composition (including plastic percentage and types), the consistently high concentrations detected in the topsoil clearly indicate that open dumpsites function as long-term accumulation hotspots for fragmented plastic debris. These findings emphasize the urgent need for expanded regional monitoring and immediate policy interventions aimed at strengthening plastic waste management. Furthermore, they highlight the importance of systematic post-monitoring of microplastic contamination in recovered land following biomining of legacy waste, particularly before considering any potential future land use.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMicroplastics shape characterization\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe characterization of microplastic types in topsoil samples of the recovered land at the Gandhinagar municipal solid waste dumpsite revealed that both fibers and fragments were present, though fragments were generally more dominant across all sampling points. Fragment concentrations ranged from 25.91 \u0026times; 10\u0026sup3; MPs/kg to 54.83 \u0026times; 10\u0026sup3; MPs/kg, or 55 to 77% of the total microplastics detected, whereas fibers concentrations varied more broadly, from 88.25 \u0026times; 10\u0026sup3; MPs/kg to 55.73 \u0026times; 10\u0026sup3; MPs/kg (45\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;23%) (Refer to Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003ea and \u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eb). At most locations, fragments consistently outnumbered fibers, suggesting a higher degradation rate and breakdown of larger plastic items such as containers, wrappers, and packaging materials into irregular-shaped fragments. At Sampling Point 5, the highest fiber concentration was recorded, with fibers accounting for 47% and fragments comprising 53%. This near-balance suggests both fibrous and rigid plastic waste are significantly present in that zone. Conversely, Point 8 exhibited the lowest fiber concentration, with fibers making up just 26%, while fragments accounted for 74%, implying that even with low fiber microplastic occurrence, fragment accumulation remains high, possibly due to intense mechanical weathering or degradation of macroplastic waste. Other examples underline the disparity between fiber and fragment levels. At Point 6, fibers represented only 25% of the total, while fragments reached 75%. A similar trend was observed at Point 7, where fibers occupied 33% of the total microplastics detected, and were accompanied by 67% of fragments. At Point 9, fiber content was 26% and fragment content was 74%, confirming fragment dominance. Points such as Point 1 and Point 3 had fibers contributing 44% and 45% respectively, showing a relatively higher fiber proportion than most other points. Point 4 had fibers at 35% and fragments at 65%, suggesting a moderate imbalance. Meanwhile, Point 10 had fibers comprising 35%, which shows again the dominant role of plastic fragments. At Point 2, fibers were measured at 33% and fragments at 67%. Point 11 had a fiber proportion of 36% and 64% fragments, while Point 12 had 30% fibers and 70% fragments, confirming a consistent pattern across most sites. In summary, in most locations, fragments of microplastics were more than two-thirds of the total microplastics, indicating extensive plastic degradation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eComparative studies from around the world show both overlap and divergence in the dominant shapes of microplastics, depending on the type of waste, stage of degradation, and landfill management system. In Mojokerto, Indonesia, Trihadiningrum et al. (2023) reported that fibers (64.44%) were the most common microplastic shape in leachate, followed by fragments (28.89%) and films (6.67%), a pattern that partially reflects the one found in Gandhinagar, especially the detection of fragment and fiber-shaped microplastics. However, the topsoil of the recovered land displayed higher fragment content than most leachate-based studies, possibly due to the retention and accumulation of heavier and more broken particles in soil versus their potential transport in leachate. In contrast, studies such as Sholokhova et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) in Kaunas County, Lithuania, and Shirazi et al. (2023) in Iran reported a dominance of films, with films comprising 49.3\u0026ndash;50.7% and 56% of total microplastics, respectively, in landfill refuse soil. In the Iranian landfill, fragments and fibers comprised 17.3% and 20.1%, possibly a different waste profile and perhaps less mechanical breakdown. Similarly, Huang et al.(2022) in Shanghai, China, found films (41.1%) were the most abundant, followed by fragments (24.9%) and fibers (18.8%), which again contrasts with the fragment-rich profile seen in Gandhinagar\u0026rsquo;s dumpsite. These differences may stem from the higher use of plastic packaging in municipal waste, regional differences in plastic usage, and landfill age or depth, influencing the shape types of microplastics released. Other studies, such as Nurhasanah et al. (2021), found that fragments (57.14%) dominated the microplastics found in leachate samples in Galuga, Indonesia, further supporting the general trend of fragment dominance, especially in tropical and subtropical zones where mechanical and UV weathering are enhanced.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn the other hand, He et al.(2019), analyzing leachate from landfill sites of four Chinese cities, categorized microplastics into lines (14.81%), flakes (22.87%), fragments (58.62%), and minor fractions of pellets and foams, further confirming the recurring dominance of fragment-shaped microplastics. Overall, the dominance of fragment-shaped microplastics in the topsoil of the recovered land occupied by Gandhinagar dumpsite is consistent with trends observed in unmanaged or weather-exposed landfills globally, where continuous exposure to environmental conditions facilitates the breakdown of larger plastic items into irregularly shaped particles. The relatively high presence of fibers also indicates additional anthropogenic sources, such as textile waste or sewage sludge application (Periyasamy and Tehrani-Bagha, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMicroplastics size characterization\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe distribution of microplastic sizes across the twelve sampling points at the recovered land indicates a clear predominance of smaller-sized particles, particularly in the 0.2 mm to 1.0 mm range. On average, 55.58% of all microplastics fell within this smallest class, 35.08% in the 1.0 mm to 2.0 mm range, and only 9.33% in the 2.0 mm to 5.0 mm class. In absolute terms, the number of microplastics in the 0.2 to 1.0 mm size range averaged 63.31\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;10.19\u0026times; 10\u0026sup3; MPs/kg, significantly higher than the 1.0 to 2.0 mm (39.81\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;10.80\u0026times; 10\u0026sup3; MPs/kg) and 2.0 to 5.0 mm (10.52\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;6.77\u0026times; 10\u0026sup3; MPs/kg) ranges (referred to Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003ea and \u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eb and Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e). This dominance of smaller particles is consistent across nearly all sampling points. Across the individual sampling points, this trend was largely consistent. Point 4 had the highest proportion of microplastics in the smallest size range, with 65% of particles falling between 0.2 and 1.0 mm. Similarly, Point 12 and Point 1 also exhibited high proportions of small microplastics, at 63% and 62% respectively. These elevated percentages suggest that these locations may be zones of intense degradation or long-term accumulation of fragmented plastic waste, releasing smaller microplastics. Interestingly, Points 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 showed slightly lower proportions of small-sized microplastics, ranging between 51% and 58%, which still indicates. The lowest proportion of small microplastics was found at Point 9 (42%), deviating from the general trend. At this point, 51% of the microplastics were in the 1.0 mm to 2.0 mm category, the highest proportion across all points. This suggests that the less degradation of plastics present or the input of medium-sized plastic fragments is more active in that area. The 1.0 mm to 2.0 mm size category consistently represented the second most abundant fraction of microplastics across the sampling points, reaching its highest proportion at Point 9, which is 51% of the total detected microplastics. Elsewhere, its share remained moderate, varying between 22% at Point 12 and 42% at Points 2 and 7. This pattern indicates that while some microplastics in this size range may be primary particles, the majority are likely intermediate fragments formed during the progressive breakdown of larger plastic debris. The largest size class ( 2.0 mm to 5.0 mm) was the least represented across all sampling points, with an overall average of just 9.33%. Most points had less than 15% of microplastics in this range, and at Point 10, this size class was absent (0%), indicating complete fragmentation or the dominance of older plastic materials already broken down. Points with the highest relative proportions of large microplastics included Point 5 (20%), Point 11 (13%), and Point 6 (13%), which could reflect recent deposition of coarse plastic waste or less weathered material. Overall, the percentage-based data clearly illustrate that smaller microplastics (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;1.0 mm) are the most prevalent form at the dumpsite, accounting for over half of all detected microplastics at nearly every location. This prevalence is of significant environmental concern due to fine microplastics\u0026rsquo; enhanced mobility, persistence, and bioavailability. The relatively low and variable presence of larger microplastics further supports the inference that prolonged degradation processes are ongoing at the site, fragmenting discarded macroplastics into finer particles over time.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompared to global studies, a consistent trend of small-sized microplastics is evident, though variations in size distribution reflect differences in waste management practices, climatic conditions, and may be the analytical methods. For instance, Trihadiningrum et al. (2023) in Mojokerto, Indonesia, reported that leachate samples were mainly composed of MPs sized 350 to 1000 \u0026micro;m (64.44%), followed by 100 to 350 \u0026micro;m (31.11%), and a minor share of 1000 to 5000 \u0026micro;m (4.45%). Similarly, Sholokhova et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) found microplastics in landfill refuse soil in Lithuania predominantly within the 0.1 to 0.2 mm range for older/mid-aged waste, and 0.2 to 0.5 mm for younger landfill cells. These values indicate a comparable degradation level, though the finer size range is in Gandhinagar. The findings by Shirazi et al. (2023) at the Kahrizak landfill soil in Iran also reflect a similar pattern: 42.8% of microplastics were in the 0.1 to 0.5 mm range, 33.8% in 0.5 to 1 mm, and 17.2% in 1 to 2 mm, closely aligning with our findings in the topsoil of recovered land at Gandhinagar. These current proportions confirmed the findings of Shi et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) across various landfill sites globally, microplastics are breaking down into finer particles over time, particularly in unregulated or open dump environments. Studies from China further reinforce this trend. For example, Huang et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) observed that the majority of microplastics in landfill refuse soil in Shanghai were \u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.5 mm, and Wan et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022a\u003c/span\u003e) also categorized microplastics from refuse into small (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.5 mm), medium (0.5 to 1 mm), and large (1 to 5 mm), with smaller sizes dominating in aged waste. In landfill leachate samples, even finer microplastics were found. Wan et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022a\u003c/span\u003e) reported 85% of microplastics in the 20 to 150 \u0026micro;m range (0.02 to 0.15 mm), while Xu et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) found most particles were \u0026le;\u0026thinsp;60 \u0026micro;m, with an overall range of 20 to 100 \u0026micro;m in landfill soil. Similarly, Sun et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) found that in the Suzhou landfill site, China, 50% of leachate microplastics were \u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;50 \u0026micro;m, demonstrating the extreme fineness of particles once they mobilize into aqueous systems. This comparative assessment reveals that the size distribution of microplastics in the Gandhinagar dumpsite soil marginally differs from trends observed globally, particularly in countries with similar climatic conditions and waste management challenges. The predominance of small microplastics not only reflects high degradation but also implies increased ecological mobility, with the potential to infiltrate food webs, groundwater, and soil microbial systems (Adjama et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024a\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024b\u003c/span\u003e; Pironti et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). These findings further underline the need for microplastic monitoring and source-control measures, especially in the case of land recovered after biomining of legacy waste before any potential usage.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolymer type characterization\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe chemical composition of each microplatsics detected under ATR-FTIR spectroscopy and compared to the spectra data provided by Jung et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) and Veerasingam et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) revealed that eight primary polymer types were presented, such as Polystyrene (PS), Nylon, Low-Density Polyethylene (LDPE), High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE), Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS), Polyurethane (PU), Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), and Polypropylene (PP) (Figs.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Fig7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e). Among these, HDPE was the most frequently encountered polymer, with an average representation of 17.77%, followed by LDPE (15.85%), ABS (15.08%), and PP (13.15%). These four polymers together contributed nearly 62% of the total polymer composition across the site, highlighting the dominance of common packaging and consumer product materials in waste dumped at the MSW dumpsite. HDPE, which is commonly used in rigid plastic containers, pipes, or detergent bottles, was particularly abundant at Point 5 (25%), Point 3 (22%), and Point 4 (22%). LDPE, typically associated with plastic bags and film, was notably high at Point 1 (25%) and Point 8 (22%). ABS, often found in electronic and automotive components, peaked at Point 8 and Point 9 (25%), hinting at possible e-waste or durable goods dumping. Nylon, a synthetic fiber used in textiles and fishing gear, had an average share of 11.38%, with maximum representation at Point 2 (20 to 22%), indicating fiber-related waste, possibly from household dumping waste. PP, which is widely used in containers, caps, and woven bags, also showed a significant presence, especially at Point 1 (22%), Point 2 (16%), and Point 4 (16%). The less abundant polymers included PU (8.62%), PTFE (8.69%), and PS (9.46%), which nevertheless appeared consistently across most points. PU, known for use in foams and insulation, showed its highest share at Point 5 (16%) and Point 3 (14%), likely from cushioning materials or building waste. PTFE, though typically less common in municipal waste, appeared in notable amounts (12 to 15%) at Points 10, 11, and 12, suggesting specialized waste input, possibly from cookware residues. PS, generally used in packaging foam residues or disposable food containers, was observed in modest proportions across most points, reaching a maximum of 12% at Point 2 and Point 5.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis diversity aligns well with typical patterns found in landfill refuse soil and leachate at the global level. However, the relative abundance of specific polymers can differ. For example, Trihadiningrum et al. (2023) in Mojokerto landfill, Indonesia, found that the dominant polymers in landfill leachate were PE, PS, polyamide (PA), and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), as well as cellophane, which may derive from food and medical packaging. PE and PS microplastics were reported in the above-mentioned study, and this study suggests a shared reliance on packaging plastics across different regions. In Kaunas County, Lithuania, Sholokhova et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) found that PE (44 to 53%) and PP (24 to 30%) dominated landfill refuse soil samples, with additional contributions from PS, PA, polyester, and PVC. Similarly, Shirazi et al. (2023) in Iran reported LDPE (60.5%), PP (18.4%), and PS (16.1%) as the main polymers in landfill refuse soil. These values, while varying in magnitude, show that polyolefins (PE and PP) dominate across various landfills globally, largely due to their global use in consumer goods, flexibility, and resistance to degradation. In the Gandhinagar dumpsite, the combined proportion of PE types (HDPE and LDPE) and PP totals over 46%, which aligns with these findings. Other studies from Asia support this dominance. Nayahi et al. (2022) identified PP and PE as major polymers in controlled and open dumpsite soils (or Topsoil of dumpsites) in Thailand. Huang et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) reported that PE, PP, and PS made up nearly 70% of all microplastics found in Shanghai landfill refuse soil, while Wan et al. (2022) observed PE (29.8%), PP (19.4%), and PET (7.9%) in both landfill soil and leachate from Guangdong Province. These compositions further support the conclusion that polyolefins and styrenic polymers are globally persistent in waste dumped at landfills due to their volume in packaging waste and long degradation time. In leachate-specific studies, Sun et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) found PE (33%) and PP (32.4%) as predominant polymers in Suzhou landfill, China, mirroring the Gandhinagar findings despite matrix differences. Nurhasanah et al. (2021) in Indonesia reported a slightly more varied distribution with PE (18.68%), PP (16.48%), and PS (13.19%), while Xu et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) identified PP (40%), PA (36%), and rayon (18%), reflecting textile and synthetic fiber inputs. The large dataset by He et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) across four Chinese cities\u0026rsquo; landfills leachate confirmed the widespread dominance of PE (34.94%) and PP (34.94%), followed by lesser amounts of PS, PET, PVC, ABS, and PU, closely resembling the polymer profile observed in Gandhinagar. The study detected rarer polymers such as polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) and PTFE, while the PTFE presence identified in the current study suggests that high-performance industrial plastics, although present in lower concentrations, still contribute to long-term contamination. Overall, the polymer spectrum observed in the topsoil of the recovered land at the Gandhinagar dumpsite is broadly consistent with international findings. The dominance of polyolefins and styrenics not only indicates their widespread use and resistance to environmental degradation but also reflects the lack of effective segregation and recycling infrastructure in many urban areas. The presence of polymers like ABS, PU, and PTFE highlights the mixing of technical and electronic waste into municipal dumpsites, which may pose greater environmental and ecotoxicological risks due to their additive content and chemical resistance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDetection and Quantification of Di-n-butyl Phthalate\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDBP, a commonly used plasticizer that is reported as an endocrine-disrupting compound, was found in topsoil samples of the recovered land at Gandhinagar City MSW dumpsite and highlights the chemical aspects of plastic dumping and microplastic pollution. In this study, the quantitative determination of DBP was carried out using HPLC. A standard stock solution of DBP with a concentration of 10 mg/L was prepared, and a calibration curve was established using a series of working standards. The calibration curve shows good linearity with a regression coefficient of 0.9961. was used to quantify DBP in the soil samples accurately. The retention time for DBP during HPLC analysis was 5.5 minutes. The concentration of DBP detected in the dumpsite soil was 1.32\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.2 mg/kg. This finding indicates notable contamination, reflecting the degradation of plastic materials such as PS, Nylon, LDPE, HDPE, ABS, PU, PTFE, and PP, and the leaching of chemical additives over time.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen compared to studies conducted elsewhere, DBP levels in Gandhinagar appear to be low. For instance, Mohammadi et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) reported that DBP concentrations range from 0.85 to 10.1 mg/kg in organic solid waste from the Bushehr port landfill in Iran, which falls below the average reported in Gandhinagar. In contrast, Swati et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) recorded significantly elevated DBP concentrations in fresh MSW, with values ranging from 196.2 to 6932.44 mg/kg, and in mined MSW from Chennai dumpsites, ranging from 264.85 to 1122.94 mg/kg. These exceptionally high values may be attributed to more extensive use of DBP-containing materials or higher accumulation of industrial waste fractions in those locations, possibly due to different analytical methodologies or waste characteristics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the context of aqueous environments, particularly landfill leachate, the concentration of DBP is generally lower due to dilution and limited water solubility and mobility of phthalates. For example, Liu et al. (2020) found DBP concentrations in Wuhan, China, leachate ranging from 0.00727 to 0.01543 mg/L, while Kotowska et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) reported even lower levels in leachates from eleven Polish MSW landfills, between 0.00003 and 0.0005 mg/L. Seasonal monitoring by Mohammadi et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) in Bushehr port, Iran, further highlighted the variability of DBP leachate content, with average values ranging from 0.00069\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.00009 mg/L in winter to 0.00275\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.001123 mg/L in fall, influenced by rainfall, temperature, and landfill age. Although significantly lower than solid waste concentrations/concentrations found in soil, these values confirm DBP\u0026rsquo;s potential mobility and transport from solid matrices into the aqueous phase, posing risks to groundwater and nearby aquatic ecosystems. While not as extreme as some of the highest recorded concentrations, the DBP level in the topsoil of recovered soil still raises concern, especially considering its persistence, bioaccumulation potential, and toxicity. It is an early indicator of chemical leaching from plastics/microplastics into the topsoil of the recovered land. These findings support the necessity of including phthalate monitoring as part of landfill risk assessment frameworks and highlight the broader implications of plastic additive migration into terrestrial and aquatic systems, especially in urban areas lacking engineered containment or treatment solutions.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study provides one of the first insights into post-biomining microplastic contamination in recovered soils, emphasizing the hidden risks that persist even after biooming of legacy waste accumulated in the dumpsite. The findings reveal an average concentration of 113.64\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;9.91 \u0026times; 10\u0026sup3; MPs/kg in topsoil, with marked spatial variability and localized hotspots. Fragments were the predominant morphology, followed by fibers, while the majority of particles were small-sized (0.2\u0026ndash;1.0 mm). ATR-FTIR analysis identified HDPE, LDPE, ABS, and PP as the dominant polymers, reflecting advanced degradation of plastic waste under prolonged environmental exposure. In addition, the detection of di-n-butyl phthalate (1.32\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.2 mg/kg) highlights the co-occurrence of chemical additives that may exacerbate ecological and human health risks. This study provides one of the first insights into post-biomining microplastic contamination in recovered soil, emphasizing the hidden risks that persist even after dumpsite bimining remediation of legacy waste. The complex mixture of physical and chemical contaminants underscores the necessity of post-biomining monitoring, stronger waste management frameworks, and evidence-based policy interventions to minimize long-term risks and ensure the safe reuse of recovered land.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdjama, I., Dave, H., 2025. Tackling microplastic contamination in sewage sludge: Optimizing organic matter degradation, quantifying microplastic presence, and evaluating ecological risks for sustainable agriculture. Sci. Total Environ. 974, 179201. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.179201\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.179201\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdjama, I., Dave, H., Amen, E., 2024a. Bibliometric analysis and review of direct factors implicating the impact of nano and microplastics on crop health and development. Plant Nano Biol. 9, 100083. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.plana.2024.100083\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.plana.2024.100083\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdjama, I., Dave, H., Balarabe, B.Y., Masiyambiri, V., Marycleopha, M., 2024b. Microplastics in dairy products and human breast milk: Contamination status and greenness analysis of available analytical methods. J. Hazard. Mater. Lett. 5, 100120. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.hazl.2024.100120\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.hazl.2024.100120\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBharath, K.M., A.L. Muthulakshmi, Usha Natesan, 2022. Microplastic contamination around the landfills: Distribution, characterization and threats: A review - ScienceDirect [WWW Document]. URL \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468584422000976?via%3Dihub\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468584422000976?via%3Dihub\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 8.6.23).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBillings, A., Carter, H., Cross, R.K., Jones, K.C., Pereira, M.G., Spurgeon, D.J., 2023. Co-occurrence of macroplastics, microplastics, and legacy and emerging plasticisers in UK soils. Sci. Total Environ. 880, 163258. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163258\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163258\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChakraborty, P., Sampath, S., Mukhopadhyay, M., Selvaraj, S., Bharat, G.K., Nizzetto, L., 2019. Baseline investigation on plasticizers, bisphenol A, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heavy metals in the surface soil of the informal electronic waste recycling workshops and nearby open dumpsites in Indian metropolitan cities. Environ. Pollut. 248, 1036\u0026ndash;1045. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.11.010\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.envpol.2018.11.010\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen, Y., Leng, Y., Liu, X., Wang, J., 2020. Microplastic pollution in vegetable farmlands of suburb Wuhan, central China. Environ. Pollut. 257, 113449. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113449\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113449\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCowger, W., Gray, A., Christiansen, S.H., DeFrond, H., Deshpande, A.D., Hemabessiere, L., Lee, E., Mill, L., Munno, K., Ossmann, B.E., Pittroff, M., Rochman, C., Sarau, G., Tarby, S., Primpke, S., 2020. Critical Review of Processing and Classification Techniques for Images and Spectra in Microplastic Research. Appl. Spectrosc. 74, 989\u0026ndash;1010. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0003702820929064\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0003702820929064\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDatta, M., Somani, M., Ramana, G.V., Sreekrishnan, T.R., 2021. Feasibility of re-using soil-like material obtained from mining of old MSW dumps as an earth-fill and as compost. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 147, 477\u0026ndash;487. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2020.09.051\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.psep.2020.09.051\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDe Marchi, E., Pigliafreddo, S., Banterle, A., Parolini, M., Cavaliere, A., 2020. Plastic packaging goes sustainable: An analysis of consumer preferences for plastic water bottles. Environ. Sci. Policy 114, 305\u0026ndash;311. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.08.014\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.envsci.2020.08.014\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDeng, M., Han, X., Ge, J., Liang, X., Du, B., Li, J., Zeng, L., 2021. Prevalence of phthalate alternatives and monoesters alongside traditional phthalates in indoor dust from a typical e-waste recycling area: Source elucidation and co-exposure risk. J. Hazard. Mater. 413, 125322. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125322\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125322\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDing, Y., Zhao, Jun, Liu, J.-W., Zhou, J., Cheng, L., Zhao, Jia, Shao, Z., Iris, \u0026Ccedil;., Pan, B., Li, X., Hu, Z.-T., 2021. A review of China\u0026rsquo;s municipal solid waste (MSW) and comparison with international regions: Management and technologies in treatment and resource utilization. J. Clean. Prod. 293, 126144. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126144\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126144\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDokl, M., Copot, A., Krajnc, D., Fan, Y.V., Vujanović, A., Aviso, K.B., Tan, R.R., Kravanja, Z., Čuček, L., 2024. Global projections of plastic use, end-of-life fate and potential changes in consumption, reduction, recycling and replacement with bioplastics to 2050. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 51, 498\u0026ndash;518. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2024.09.025\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.spc.2024.09.025\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGhorbaninejad Fard Shirazi, M.M., Shekoohiyan, S., Moussavi, G., Heidari, M., 2023a. Microplastics and mesoplastics as emerging contaminants in Tehran landfill soils: The distribution and induced-ecological risk. Environ. Pollut. 324, 121368. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2023.121368\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.envpol.2023.121368\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGhorbaninejad Fard Shirazi, M.M., Shekoohiyan, S., Moussavi, G., Heidari, M., 2023b. Microplastics and mesoplastics as emerging contaminants in Tehran landfill soils: The distribution and induced-ecological risk. Environ. Pollut. 324, 121368. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2023.121368\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.envpol.2023.121368\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGhosh, N., Sau, D., Hazra, T., Debsarkar, A., 2025. Extraction and characterization of microplastics in biomined good earth fractions: assessment of urban and suburban landfill sites, India. Environ. Monit. Assess. 197, 505. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-025-13950-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10661-025-13950-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGoli, V.S.N.S., Singh, D.N., 2023. Extraction and characterization of microplastics in Landfill-Mined-Soil-like-Fractions: A novel methodology. Chem. Eng. J. 452, 139217. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2022.139217\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.cej.2022.139217\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHamdan, A., Panda, S., Jain, M.S., Raj, V., Mathew, S., 2025. Assessing municipal solid waste in Indian smart cities: A path towards Waste-to-Energy. Heliyon 11, e42770. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e42770\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e42770\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHaritwal, D.K., Singh, P., Ramana, G.V., Datta, M., 2024a. Microplastic migration from landfill-mined soil through earth filling operations and ecological risk assessment: a case study in New Delhi, India. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 31, 65002\u0026ndash;65021. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-35545-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11356-024-35545-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHaritwal, D.K., Singh, P., Ramana, G.V., Datta, M., 2024b. Microplastic migration from landfill-mined soil through earth filling operations and ecological risk assessment: a case study in New Delhi, India. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 31, 65002\u0026ndash;65021. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-35545-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11356-024-35545-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHartmann, C., Lomako, I., Schachner, C., El Said, E., Abert, J., Satrapa, V., Kaiser, A.-M., Walch, H., K\u0026ouml;ppel, S., 2024. Assessment of microplastics in human stool: A pilot study investigating the potential impact of diet-associated scenarios on oral microplastics exposure. Sci. Total Environ. 951, 175825. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.175825\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.175825\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHe, P., Chen, L., Shao, L., Zhang, H., L\u0026uuml;, F., 2019. Municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill: A source of microplastics? -Evidence of microplastics in landfill leachate. Water Res. 159, 38\u0026ndash;45. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.04.060\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.watres.2019.04.060\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHou, Q., Zhen, M., Qian, H., Nie, Y., Bai, X., Xia, T., Laiq Ur Rehman, M., Li, Q., Ju, M., 2021. Upcycling and catalytic degradation of plastic wastes. Cell Rep. Phys. Sci. 2, 100514. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrp.2021.100514\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.xcrp.2021.100514\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHuang, Q., Cheng, Z., Yang, C., Wang, H., Zhu, N., Cao, X., Lou, Z., 2022. Booming microplastics generation in landfill: An exponential evolution process under temporal pattern. Water Res. 223, 119035. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2022.119035\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.watres.2022.119035\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJoseph, K., ESAKKU, S., Palanivelu, K., Selvam, A., 2003. Studies on landfill mining at solid waste dumpsites in India. Proc. Sard. 03 Ninth Int. Landfill Symp.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJung, M.R., Horgen, F.D., Orski, S.V., Rodriguez C., V., Beers, K.L., Balazs, G.H., Jones, T.T., Work, T.M., Brignac, K.C., Royer, S.-J., Hyrenbach, K.D., Jensen, B.A., Lynch, J.M., 2018. Validation of ATR FT-IR to identify polymers of plastic marine debris, including those ingested by marine organisms. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 127, 704\u0026ndash;716. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.12.061\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.12.061\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKabir, M.S., Wang, H., Luster-Teasley, S., Zhang, L., Zhao, R., 2023. Microplastics in landfill leachate: Sources, detection, occurrence, and removal. Environ. Sci. Ecotechnology 16, 100256. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ese.2023.100256\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ese.2023.100256\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKibria, Md.G., Masuk, N.I., Safayet, R., Nguyen, H.Q., Mourshed, M., 2023. Plastic Waste: Challenges and Opportunities to Mitigate Pollution and Effective Management. Int. J. Environ. Res. 17, 20. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s41742-023-00507-z\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s41742-023-00507-z\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKotowska, U., Kapelewska, J., Sawczuk, R., 2020. Occurrence, removal, and environmental risk of phthalates in wastewaters, landfill leachates, and groundwater in Poland. Environ. Pollut. 267, 115643. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115643\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115643\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKumar, A., Agrawal, A., 2020. Recent trends in solid waste management status, challenges, and potential for the future Indian cities \u0026ndash; A review. Curr. Res. Environ. Sustain. 2, 100011. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsust.2020.100011\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.crsust.2020.100011\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu, H., Liang, Y., Zhang, D., Wang, C., Liang, H., Cai, H., 2010. Impact of MSW landfill on the environmental contamination of phthalate esters. Waste Manag. 30, 1569\u0026ndash;1576. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.01.040\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.wasman.2010.01.040\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu, Q., Chen, D., Wu, J., Yin, G., Lin, Q., Zhang, M., Hu, H., 2018. Determination of phthalate esters in soil using a quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, and safe method followed by GC-MS. J. Sep. Sci. 41, 1812\u0026ndash;1820. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/jssc.201701126\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/jssc.201701126\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMCG, 2019. Solid Waste Management \u0026ndash; Gandhinagar Municipal Corporation. URL \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://gandhinagarmunicipal.com/solid-waste-management\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://gandhinagarmunicipal.com/solid-waste-management\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e/ (accessed 9.26.25).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMeena, M.D., Dotaniya, M.L., Meena, B.L., Rai, P.K., Antil, R.S., Meena, H.S., Meena, L.K., Dotaniya, C.K., Meena, V.S., Ghosh, A., Meena, K.N., Singh, A.K., Meena, V.D., Moharana, P.C., Meena, S.K., Srinivasarao, Ch., Meena, A.L., Chatterjee, S., Meena, D.K., Prajapat, M., Meena, R.B., 2023. Municipal solid waste: Opportunities, challenges and management policies in India: A review. Waste Manag. Bull. 1, 4\u0026ndash;18. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.wmb.2023.04.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.wmb.2023.04.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMohammadi, A., Malakootian, M., Dobaradaran, S., Hashemi, M., Jaafarzadeh, N., 2022. Occurrence, seasonal distribution, and ecological risk assessment of microplastics and phthalate esters in leachates of a landfill site located near the marine environment: Bushehr port, Iran as a case. Sci. Total Environ. 842, 156838. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156838\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156838\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMohammadi, A., Malakootian, M., Dobaradaran, S., Hashemi, M., Jaafarzadeh, N., De-la-Torre, G.E., 2023. Occurrence and ecological risks of microplastics and phthalate esters in organic solid wastes: In a landfill located nearby the Persian Gulf. Chemosphere 332, 138910. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.138910\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.138910\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMohan, S., Joseph, C.P., 2021. Potential Hazards due to Municipal Solid Waste Open Dumping in India. J. Indian Inst. Sci. 101, 523\u0026ndash;536. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s41745-021-00242-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s41745-021-00242-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMohan, S., Joseph, C.P., 2020. Biomining: An Innovative and Practical Solution for Reclamation of Open Dumpsite, in: Kalamdhad, A.S. (Ed.), Recent Developments in Waste Management. Springer, Singapore, pp. 167\u0026ndash;178. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0990-2_12\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-981-15-0990-2_12\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNaaz, I., Thengane, S.K., Arora, P., Thirumoorthy, G., Singal, S.K., 2025. Waste-to-energy pathways for fresh and legacy waste management: A case study in India. Energy Nexus 19, 100472. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.nexus.2025.100472\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.nexus.2025.100472\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNayanathara Thathsarani Pilapitiya, P.G.C., Ratnayake, A.S., 2024. The world of plastic waste: A review. Clean. Mater. 11, 100220. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.clema.2024.100220\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.clema.2024.100220\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNet, S., Semp\u0026eacute;r\u0026eacute;, R., Delmont, A., Paluselli, A., Ouddane, B., 2015. Occurrence, Fate, Behavior and Ecotoxicological State of Phthalates in Different Environmental Matrices. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 4019\u0026ndash;4035. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1021/es505233b\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1021/es505233b\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNurhasanah, Cordova, M.R., Riani, E., 2021. Micro- and mesoplastics release from the Indonesian municipal solid waste landfill leachate to the aquatic environment: Case study in Galuga Landfill Area, Indonesia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 163, 111986. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.111986\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.111986\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eParrodi, J.C.H., H\u0026ouml;llen, D., Pomberger, R., 2018. CHARACTERIZATION OF FINE FRACTIONS FROM LANDFILL MINING: A REVIEW OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS. Detritus 46. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.31025/2611-4135/2018.13663\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.31025/2611-4135/2018.13663\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePeriyasamy, A.P., Tehrani-Bagha, A., 2022. A review on microplastic emission from textile materials and its reduction techniques. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 199, 109901. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2022.109901\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2022.109901\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePironti, C., Ricciardi, M., Motta, O., Miele, Y., Proto, A., Montano, L., 2021. Microplastics in the Environment: Intake through the Food Web, Human Exposure and Toxicological Effects. Toxics 9, 224. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/toxics9090224\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/toxics9090224\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchnepf, U., von Moers-Me\u0026szlig;mer, M.A.L., Br\u0026uuml;mmer, F., 2023. A practical primer for image-based particle measurements in microplastic research. Microplastics Nanoplastics 3, 16. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s43591-023-00064-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s43591-023-00064-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSekar, V., Sundaram, B., 2023. Preliminary evidence of microplastics in landfill leachate, Hyderabad, India. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 175, 369\u0026ndash;376. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2023.05.070\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.psep.2023.05.070\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShi, X., Chen, Z., Wu, L., Wei, W., Ni, B.-J., 2023. Microplastics in municipal solid waste landfills: Detection, formation and potential environmental risks. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 31, 100433. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2022.100433\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.coesh.2022.100433\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShi, Y., Yi, L., Du, G., Hu, X., Huang, Y., 2023. Visual characterization of microplastics in corn flour by near field molecular spectral imaging and data mining. Sci. Total Environ. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160714\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160714\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSholokhova, A., Denafas, G., Ceponkus, J., Omelianenko, T., 2023. Microplastics in Landfill Bodies: Abundance, Spatial Distribution and Effect of Landfill Age. Sustainability 15, 5017. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su15065017\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su15065017\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSingh, A., Chandel, M.K., 2023. Physicochemical and biological assessment of legacy waste for application as soil conditioner. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 30, 29699\u0026ndash;29710. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-24295-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11356-022-24295-9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSu, Y., Zhang, Z., Wu, D., Zhan, L., Shi, H., Xie, B., 2019. Occurrence of microplastics in landfill systems and their fate with landfill age. Water Res. 164, 114968. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.114968\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.watres.2019.114968\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSun, J., Zhu, Z.-R., Li, W.-H., Yan, X., Wang, L.-K., Zhang, L., Jin, J., Dai, X., Ni, B.-J., 2021. Revisiting Microplastics in Landfill Leachate: Unnoticed Tiny Microplastics and Their Fate in Treatment Works. Water Res. 190, 116784. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116784\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.watres.2020.116784\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSwati, M., Rema, T., Joseph, K., 2008. Hazardous organic compounds in urban municipal solid waste from a developing country. J. Hazard. Mater. 160, 213\u0026ndash;219. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.02.111\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.02.111\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSwati, Thakur, I.S., Vijay, V.K., Ghosh, P., 2019. Scenario of Landfilling in India: Problems, Challenges, and Recommendations, in: Handbook of Environmental Materials Management. Springer, Cham, pp. 321\u0026ndash;336. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73645-7_167\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-319-73645-7_167\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThaiyal Nayahi, N., Ou, B., Liu, Y., Janjaroen, D., 2022. Municipal solid waste sanitary and open landfills: Contrasting sources of microplastics and its fate in their respective treatment systems. J. Clean. Prod. 380, 135095. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135095\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135095\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTrihadiningrum, Y., Wilujeng, S.A., Tafaqury, R., Radita, D.R., Radityaningrum, A.D., 2023a. Evidence of microplastics in leachate of Randegan landfill, Mojokerto City, Indonesia, and its potential to pollute surface water. Sci. Total Environ. 874, 162207. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162207\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162207\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTrihadiningrum, Y., Wilujeng, S.A., Tafaqury, R., Radita, D.R., Radityaningrum, A.D., 2023b. Evidence of microplastics in leachate of Randegan landfill, Mojokerto City, Indonesia, and its potential to pollute surface water. Sci. Total Environ. 874, 162207. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162207\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162207\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVeerasingam, S., Ranjani, M., Venkatachalapathy, R., Bagaev, A., Mukhanov, V., Litvinyuk, D., Mugilarasan, M., Gurumoorthi, K., Guganathan, L., Aboobacker, V.M., Vethamony, P., 2021. Contributions of Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy in microplastic pollution research: A review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 2681\u0026ndash;2743. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2020.1807450\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/10643389.2020.1807450\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWan, Y., Chen, X., Liu, Q., Hu, H., Wu, C., Xue, Q., 2022a. Informal landfill contributes to the pollution of microplastics in the surrounding environment. Environ. Pollut. 293, 118586. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.118586\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.envpol.2021.118586\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWan, Y., Chen, X., Liu, Q., Hu, H., Wu, C., Xue, Q., 2022b. Informal landfill contributes to the pollution of microplastics in the surrounding environment. Environ. Pollut. 293, 118586. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.118586\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.envpol.2021.118586\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang, Q., Lv, K.-N., Wang, A.-T., Liu, X., Yin, G., Wang, J., Du, X., Li, J., Yuan, G.-L., 2022. Release of phthalate esters from a local landfill in the Tibetan Plateau: Importance of soil particle-size specific association. Sci. Total Environ. 806, 151281. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151281\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151281\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXu, Z., Sui, Q., Li, A., Sun, M., Zhang, L., Lyu, S., Zhao, W., 2020. How to detect small microplastics (20\u0026ndash;100 \u0026micro;m) in freshwater, municipal wastewaters and landfill leachates? A trial from sampling to identification. Sci. Total Environ. 733, 139218. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139218\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139218\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang, K., Hamidian, A.H., Tubić, A., Zhang, Y., Fang, J.K.H., Wu, C., Lam, P.K.S., 2021. Understanding plastic degradation and microplastic formation in the environment: A review. Environ. Pollut. 274, 116554. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.116554\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.envpol.2021.116554\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhou, C., Xu, W., Gong, Z., Fang, W., Cao, A., 2015. Characteristics and Fertilizer Effects of Soil-Like Materials from Landfill Mining. CLEAN \u0026ndash; Soil Air Water 43, 940\u0026ndash;947. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/clen.201400510\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/clen.201400510\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Dumpsite, Legacy Waste, Biomining, Recovered Land, Microplastics, Di-n-butyl phthalate","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8080128/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8080128/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eLegacy waste poses a significant threat to both human and environmental health. Biomining has emerged as a potential treatment of legacy waste accumulated over the years, clearing the land occupied for urban forests, green spaces, and other recreational purposes. Among the various waste fractions of legacy waste, plastics are of particular concern. Multiple studies have confirmed the presence of microplastics in leachates from dumpsites and landfills; however, limited research is available on microplastic contamination in recovered land/topsoil after biomining. As the World Health Organization recognizes microplastics as emerging pollutants of concern, assessing their occurrence in topsoil must be studied in post-biomining to ensure environmentally safe use of the recovered land. This study investigates post-biomining microplastic contamination in the topsoil of the recovered land once occupied by legacy waste at Gandhinagar dumpsite, with preliminary analysis of di-n-butyl phthalate (DBP), a common plasticizer. Results revealed an average contamination of 113.64\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;9.91 \u0026times; 10\u0026sup3; microplastics/kg in the topsoil of the recovered land. Fragment-shaped microplastics were dominant (\u0026asymp;\u0026thinsp;75%), while fibers contributed 25\u0026ndash;47%. The majority were small-sized particles (0.2\u0026ndash;1.0 mm). ATR-FTIR analysis indicated that the microplastics were mainly composed of polyethylene, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, and polypropylene. Furthermore, DBP was detected at 1.32\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.2 mg/kg in the topsoil, indicating chemical leaching from degrading plastic waste as well as microplastics. These findings underline the critical importance of post-biomining monitoring of microplastic contamination and raise concerns regarding the presence of plastic additives in the recovered lands.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Recovered but Polluted? Post-Biomining Monitoring of Microplastic Contamination in the Topsoil of the Recovered Land","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-01-09 10:25:37","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8080128/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"9c22a833-7be7-4885-9f11-3f0275b66557","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 9th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-13T13:54:17+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-01-09 10:25:37","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8080128","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8080128","identity":"rs-8080128","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}