Talk:Microplastics/Archive 1

This edit request to Microplastics has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change X =Airborne microplastics have been detected in the atmosphere, as well as indoors and outdoors. A 2017 study found indoor airborne microfiber concentrations between 1.0–60.0 microfibers per cubic meter (33% of which were found to be microplastics).[87] Another study looked at microplastic in the street dust of Tehran and found 2,649 particles of microplastic within 10 samples of street dust, with ranging samples concentrations from 83 particle – 605 particles (+/- 10) per 30.0 g of street dust.[88] However, much like freshwater ecosystems and soil, more studies are needed to understand the full impact and significance of airborne microplastics.[48] to Y= Airborne microplastics transport has been detected in remote mountain atmospheric fallout in a recent study in the french Pyrenees. The study found an average of 365 p/m2 per day depositing more than 100km from the nearest possible source. The study wash published to world wide attention in Nature Geoscience^[1] A 2017 study found indoor airborne microfiber concentrations between 1.0–60.0 microfibers per cubic meter (33% of which were found to be microplastics).[87] Another study looked at microplastic in the street dust of Tehran and found 2,649 particles of microplastic within 10 samples of street dust, with ranging samples concentrations from 83 particle – 605 particles (+/- 10) per 30.0 g of street dust.[88] However, much like freshwater ecosystems and soil, more studies are needed to understand the full impact and significance of airborne microplastics.[48]recent Nature Geoscience article https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0335-5 to Microplastics Air. It is ^[2]showing an average 365 per sqm/day microplastic particles depositing in a remote mountain area in the French Pyrenees. This is the first study to show atmospheric transport (airborne microplastic). Thanks Thermalsailors (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 17:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: This text is not appropriate to include in it's current shape. It gives too much emphasis to this one study, replaces the more general discription with specific details, uses promotional language and doubiously claim "This is the first study to show atmospheric transport". The source can be used but the text has to be significantly rewritten. --Trialpears (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I think this section also should be included, describing how microplastics carry toxic chemicals such as heavy metals and hydrophobic organic contaminants between different environment media. By describing is by discussing the adsorption and desorption mechanism. This can explain are organism are exposed to microplastics toxicity.

This article could be useful

•Verla, A.W., Enyoh, C.E., Verla, E.N. Nwanorh K.O. (2019). Microplastic–toxic chemical interaction: a review study on quantified levels, mechanism and implication. Springer Nature Applied Sciences 1: 1400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-1352-0

Cenyoh (talk) 03:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

This article has many bold claims about the effects of microplastics that are all marked as "citation needed". If you do not have citations for these claims, they should not be in the article.

In particular:

"PET, a common durable plastic used in bottled water, juice and soda leaches antimony in amounts that exceed U.S. safety guidelines under high temperature. HDPE commonly used in food packaging can percolate estrogenic chemicals when exposed to heat, boiling water and sunlight causes breast cancer, endometriosis, altered sex ratios, testicular cancer, poor semen quality, early puberty and malformations of the reproductive tract. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is used to wrap meat and sandwiches, floats in the tub in the form of bath toys, makes for stylish jackets and household plumbing, leaches toxic chemicals when in contact with water. Four chemical softeners used with PVC interfere with the body’s production of hormones. Polystyrene, a common type of plastic used in packaging for takeout food and the fishing industry, can release carcinogen when in contact with hot beverages."

As far as I know none of these claims have survived peer review and make this article come across as alarmist. The line about "bath toys, makes for stylish jackets and household plumbing" is simply designed to provoke fear without a providing any context or justification for these claims.

Agree. Randywombat (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I am intending on adding to the Biological integration into Organisms section as well as persistent organic pollutants. My additions will focus on the effect on bivalves. Hope this is reasonable!

1. Guilhermino L., Vieira L. R., Ribeiro D., Tavares A. S., Cardoso V., Alves A., Almeida J. M. 2018. Uptake and effects of the antimicrobial florfenicol, microplastics and their mixtures on freshwater exotic invasive bivalve Corbicula fluminea. Sci Tot Env (622): 1131–1142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.020
2. Bringer A., Thomas H., Prunier G., Dubillot E., Bossut N., Churlaud C., Clérandeau C., Le Bihanic F., Cachot J. 2020. High density polyethylene (HDPE) microplastics impair development and swimming activity of Pacific oyster D-larvae, Crassostrea gigas, depending on particle size. Env Pol (260). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.113978
3. Sun S., Shi W., Tang Y., Han Y., Du X., Zhou W., Hu Y., Zhou C., Liu G. 2020. Immunotoxicity of petroleum hydrocarbons and microplastics alone or in combination to a bivalve species: Synergic impacts and potential toxication mechanisms. Sci Tot Env (728). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138852
4. Tang Y., Zhou W., Sun S., Du X., Han Y., Shi W., Liu G. 2020. Immunotoxicity and neurotoxicity of bisphenol A and microplastics alone or in combination to a bivalve species, Tegillarca granosa. Env Pol (265). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115115
5. Tang Y., Rong J., Guan X., Zha S., Shi W., Han Y., Du X., Wu F., Huang W., Liu G. 2020. Immunotoxicity of microplastics and two persistent organic pollutants alone or in combination to a bivalve species. Env Pol (258). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113845
6. Gardon T., Morvan L., Huvet A., Quillien V., Soyez C., Le Moullac G., Le Luyer J. 2020. Microplastics induce dose-specific transcriptomic disruptions in energy metabolism and immunity of the pearl oyster Pinctada margaritifera. Env Pol (266). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115180
7. Bour A., Haarr A., Keiter S., Hylland K. 2018. Environmentally relevant microplastic exposure affects sediment-dwelling bivalves. Env Pol (236): 652–660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.02.006
8. Tallec K., Huvet A., Di Poi C., González-Fernández C., Lambert C., Petton B., Le Goïc N., Berchel M., Soudant P., Paul-Pont I. 2018. Nanoplastics impaired oyster free living stages, gametes and embryos. Env Pol (242): 1226–1235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.08.020
9. Oliveira P., Barboza L. G. A., Branco V., Figueiredo N., Carvalho C., Guilhermino L. 2018. Effects of microplastics and mercury in the freshwater bivalve Corbicula fluminea (Müller, 1774): Filtration rate, biochemical biomarkers and mercury bioconcentration. Ecotox & Env Saf (164): 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.07.062
10. Christoforou E., Dominoni D. M., Lindström J., Stilo G., Spatharis S. 2020. Effects of long-term exposure to microfibers on ecosystem services provided by coastal mussels. Env Pol (266). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115184

Gpappy (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Seems like these edits were done. --Leyo 07:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Color chart's image for plastic color samples prior to molding and manufacture leads here, mentioning the plastic pellets that are moletn down to form a product, but this article seems to be about microplastics, a completely different thing dealing with pollution. I don't know how this redirect mishap happened, and I'd like to fix it, but I can't find what the original article might have been (if any). Failing that, would redirecting to Plastic extrusion be enough? I fear there might be other processes where plastic pellets are used. 185.163.103.83 (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

There were lots of unsourced statements in there, or statements that didn't match the actual cited works. There's a great deal of uncertainty about the effects of microplastics on humans, if they indeed have any; no significant effects have been found and present exposure levels for most people are thought to be safe but research is ongoing. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

What about using the following new Nature publication to bring this section up-to-date?

Lim, XiaoZhi (2021-05-06). "Microplastics are everywhere — but are they harmful?". Nature. 593 (7857): 22–25. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-01143-3.

--Leyo 07:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The beginning of this section reads: "Due to their ubiquity in the environment, microplastics are widespread among the different matrices." For readability, I think it would be helpful to phrase this a different way, as there is no Wikilink I can think of that would explain to a general reader what is meant by "matrices" in this context. Does anyone with knowledge of this terminology have any suggestions? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

thank you. This has now been addressed (see talk page of ocean as well). EMsmile (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The term (environmental) matrices is well-established in environmental sciences. --Leyo 12:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

This may be so but we are trying to write articles that lay persons can understand. As a layperson, the term is unclear (for me) and my proposed change is still scientifically correct, I believe (see talk page of ocean). Also, if it's so well established, how come we have no Wikipedia article for it, or an article that we could wikilink? EMsmile (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I did some editing for readability while in consultation with Tim Jickells, whose book titled Marine Geochemistry is cited in the Oceans article. He offered specific suggestions for editing the first few sentences to make them accessible to general readers, while retaining accuracy. He also gave me some examples to further explain what "marine particles" are. These clarifications allowed us to "excerpt" the first sentences of Microplastics for use in the Oceans article, which is also helping with. Thank you, Dr. Jickells.PlanetCare (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The title of Dr. Jickells' book is Marine Geochemistry.PlanetCare (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

So the new sentence now says Microplastics are also found within the many other types of marine particles such as dead biological material (tissue and shells) and some soil particles (blown in by wind and carried to the ocean by rivers).. Seems clearer to me, thanks PlanetCare. EMsmile (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

That is much improved, in my view. Thanks to all who followed up with this request. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation, as it does help to know the readability edits are improvements that don't detract from the science.PlanetCare (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I have removed these external links as I don't think they are sufficiently important to be listed under external links. Some of the news articles could possibly be converted to in-line citations. Some of the video links are broken.

I have removed this further reading list as it mainly contains journal articles which could be converted to inline citations instead. For a rapidly developing topic like this one, such a "further reading" list could become extremely long (and arbitrary) if we add any new publications that we come across.

EMsmile (talk) 07:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that no papers on specific issues (such as the last one) or non-recent literature should be provided in such a list. However, have a list of recent review papers (published in good journals) would have some merit. --Leyo 19:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

If recent review papers in good journals are available shouldn't they rather be used for inline citations? If so, then there is no need to list them additionally in a "further reading" list in my opinion. EMsmile (talk) 02:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Not necessarily. --Leyo 23:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that the information about microplastics in oceans is spread over several articles: this one and also the one on marine pollution. I propose to move the text that covers microplastics in oceans from this article to marine pollution and then just leaving an excerpt and links. This way, it would be clear where new content should be added in future (in just one article, not two). Some of it is also covered in the article on Plastic pollution. Eventually, there could be merit in splitting it off into a separate article, which called be called Marine pollution with plastics. But let's first consolidate it in one spot. EMsmile (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The text in Marine pollution#Microplastics should not become longer. It is rather supposed to be a summary since this article has a rather broad topic. --Leyo 23:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Leyo Well, where should the details about microplastics in oceans go then? I think Marine pollution#Microplastics would be a suitable place but would you favor a new stand-alone article for it? At the moment it's spread across several articles; I would like to establish a "central" spot for it, preferably in an existing article. If not, then in a new article. EMsmile (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a case for an article dealing generally with plastic pollution in the ocean. This would include things like ghost nets in addition to microplastics. Ocean microplastic often starts out as macroplastic, such as windblown plastic bags that degrade into microplastics, so it would make sense for the article to cover the whole size range. — Epipelagic (talk) 09:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a good point. Do you feel that it would be beneficial to start a new article? I am undecided. A new article might be nice so that we can have everything in one place and updated (headings could be: type of plastic pollution, mechanisms, scale of the problem, causes, potential solutions, political commitments, society and culture), and let the other articles later link to it. But the disadvantage of a new article is that it will start off with low pageviews (and potentially linger with low pageviews for a while). The plastic pollution article also has quite a bit of content about it (which could be moved): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_pollution#Effects_of_plastic_on_oceans . I think I am currently leaning towards the idea of a new article. If yes, then what should it be called? Options: Marine pollution with plastics, Plastic pollution in the ocean, Ocean pollution with plastics. Is it better to have "marine" in the title or "ocean"? EMsmile (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

On Google Search, plastic pairs three times as often with ocean as with marine. But on Google Scholar it goes the other way, and plastic pairs three times as often with marine as with ocean. So you might as well toss a coin. It's only a preference, but I would go for Plastic pollution in the ocean. — Epipelagic (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I oppose creating another article. We currently have the following articles that contain information on marine microplastics:

• Microplastics
• Plastic pollution
• Plastic soup
• Great Pacific garbage patch
• Garbage patch
• Marine debris
• Marine pollution

I prefer having the main information on marine microplastics in Microplastics and summaries (with {{Main|Microplastics#…}}) in the others. --Leyo 16:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I would be good, Leyo, if you provided more rational for your opinion. Why do you oppose creation of a new article? And why do you oppose the content to be included in marine pollution? By the way, there is also content about microplastics here in the SDG 14 article (recently added by me and a content expert; it's actually what prompted me to think about where the bulk of the microplastics content should be located9. I think User:Epipelagic made a good point that microplastics in oceans cannot be looked at in isolation because it often is connected to "larger" plastics, which later produces the microplastics. Therefore, placing the content in Microplastics won't really work, it would be too limiting and not intuitive. It needs to be in a bigger article. I actually think it could fit in marine pollution but right from the start you argued against it. When you look at how the content is dealt with at Plastic pollution, I think it becomes clear that splitting this off into a sub-article would have its merits (as the content is likely to become longer and more detailed over time). - And I like the proposed name by Epipelagic: Plastic pollution in the ocean. I guess the word "marine" is an adjective and scientists like to use it. But as a layperson (and non English native speaker) I always have to remind myself that marine = ocean. Wikipedia says here: Marine is an adjective meaning of or pertaining to the sea or ocean. - I guess "oceanic" is also an adjective for ocean. EMsmile (talk) 02:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, we have information on that matter already in several articles. Therefore, it would not be a good idea to even create more articles. I am aware that your suggestion includes trimming too lengthy information from other articles. However, the respective sections would likely refilled in future, creating redundancy. BTW: Your addition to Sustainable Development Goal 14#Marine pollution from plastics is too long in my opinion.

In my view, Microplastics and Plastic pollution are possible articles for the content, as they are specific enough. On the other hand, Marine pollution is way too unspecific to host the main content related to microplastics in oceans. --Leyo 00:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding "However, the respective sections would likely refilled in future, creating redundancy." I think this is not a real risk because in that location would most likely be an excerpt and a clear link to the new sub-article. So people will understand that there is a sub-article on the topic and add new content there rather. Of course one can never be totally sure where people add content (especially students) but that's why we would have the articles on our watchlist. I agree with you that the content at SDG 14 about microplastics is too long. That's exactly what prompted me to investigate where the main location of "microplastics in oceans" should be - and then I found it scattered all over the place.. So far, we have one user in favour of a stand-alone article (User:Epipelagic) and one user against (you). I am leaning towards favoring a new article. I guess we could wait a few days to collect other opinions. I am also pinging three users whom I am working with on several articles; not because I think they will support my point but just because it would be good to get more opinions. Perhaps there is a third option I haven't thought of yet: sadads, PlanetCare, ASRASR. Overall, I think the topic of plastics in microplastics in oceans will become bigger in future which I think speaks for having a stand-alone article. EMsmile (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Here is another suggestion: we could take the article Plastic soup, rename it and rework it. That article starts with "Plastic soup is a term referring to pollution of the sea by plastics in general, ranging from large pieces of fishing gear that can entrap marine animals to the microplastics and nanoplastics that result from the breakdown or photodegradation of plastic waste in surface waters, rivers or oceans." It only gets about 20 pageviews per day and is a stub. Another option is to take the existing article on Great Pacific garbage patch and broaden its content and change its name, so that "Great Pacific garbage patch" becomes a sub-heading in an article called "Plastic pollution in oceans". Oh wait, there is also an article called Garbage patch, that's another candidate for reworking. I think once we have defined ONE main location (whether it's a new article or a re-worked existing one), then it'll be easy to clean up the rest and ensure they all link across to the main location. EMsmile (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The option with renaming and expanding Plastic soup would have some merit. Firstly, we wouldn't increase the number of articles on that topic, and secondly, its current interwikilink to de:Plastikmüll in den Ozeanen would match thereafter. --Leyo 20:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Well that sort of language link can easily be adjusted. But the article de:Plastikmüll in den Ozeanen looks exactly like what I'd have in mind for the English article (trust the German Wikipedia to have a better article on this topic than the English Wikipedia!). One option might be to just translate the German article to English and then integrate the existing English text blocks (from a range of articles) into that. I have never done an article translation though. I guess one problem would be that the references would all (or mostly) be in German. But at the very least, we could use the same structure as their article. And doesn't the fact that the German Wikipedia has de:Plastikmüll in den Ozeanen speak for having an English article called "Plastic pollution in oceans"? We don't have to start with a blank page / new article, we could take Plastic soup or Garbage patch as a starting point, rename it and then expand it. EMsmile (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I would like to progress this now. I think the best approach is to take Plastic soup and expand it and rename it to Plastic pollution in the ocean (or Plastic pollution in oceans?). I plan to work on that this week. Please comment if you have further suggestions. What it will involve in the first instance is to move a lot of the material from other articles to Plastic soup and to just leave short summaries and links behind. EMsmile (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually I did a quick Google search an Plastic pollution in the ocean is more common than Plastic pollution in oceans. Another term that comes up in Google searches is Ocean plastic pollution. That might be better because then we don't need the "in the" in the title? EMsmile (talk) 01:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Done. Please head to plastic soup's talk page for further discussion on this. EMsmile (talk) 04:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 30 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chloeurofsky (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Txperalt, Chloeurofsky.

The definition of microplastics, less than 5 mm dia, is illogical, considering all polymers leaving Polymerisation Factories are small beads that fall into this category. Most are 2- 3 mm dia by 4mm long,prior to processing. This definition condemns all Polymers to the "fear" of microplastics ingestion, when in fact the problem is a waste management issue that has been around for centuries.The world wide practice of dumping rubbish in the Ocean rivers creeks has now been exposed because a large percentage of plastics float, unlike steel cans and glass bottles that sink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.82.147.188 (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

A. Most of the facts have reliable sources but some of the facts come from sites that could be interpreted as biased or unreliable.

C. The article remains neutral because it seems that its main focus is to educate readers on the nature of microplastics as well as where it comes from.

G. A lot of the information is recent so not much needs to be updated, however, there are some sources from the 20th century and would most likely need to be updated. Due to the nature of the plastic pollution, it is important that the resources remain updated so I would try to keep the cited works as recent as possible.

Chloeurofsky (talk) 23:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Mushrooms: Carbios, Biohm, Pestalotiopsis microspora

Bacteria: Pseudomonas morganensis, Ideonella sakaiensis

Enzymes: ,, , , ,,,, ,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,

Insects: Zophobas morio , Mealworms , Galleria mellonella , Plodia Interpunctella

Algae: , , Phaeodactylum tricornutum

194.246.144.13 (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

194.246.144.13 This is teh microplastics page, not the plastic decomposition page. Microplastics are not mentioned in the first two articles I checked.Wuerzele (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Instead, citation [64] applys to the contents intended by [63]. And "Considering that one treatment plant discharges 160 trillion liters of water per day, around 8 trillion microbeads are released into waterways every day", the numbers in bold are related to the United States as a country, not one treatment plant. ThomasYehYeh (talk) 10:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I found the same mistake. I don’t understand the calculations of the referenced text, but I removed the incorrect citation and the obviously wrong “160 trillion liters per plant and day”. 37.138.102.85 (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The #Human body section (permalink) collects a bunch of unrelated papers reporting random findings of microplastic particles. Such statements have clear (non-necessarily intentional) scaremonger effects on the reader, while there is no general consensus neither about how microplastics are widespread in the human body or in average human food, nor about how dangerous this presence would be. Horcrux (talk) 10:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The #Humans section has a statement about the lack of consensus. Makes me wonder why the two sections are in completely different parts of the article. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Correct. @HansVonStuttgart Its because the entire article has no guardian editors-, someone or a bunch that seem to have an overview about environmental health...Its written rather lay language wise ("where microplastics can be found" = repository), exposure pathways are missing, the rest of biology is missing, anthropocentric as usual. the same is true for the lede, which is stuffed with hodgepodge details (even geologist student Björn Lycke was allowed to sneak his paper in, arrgh!) loaded with refs and will need to be rewritten to summarize the body. Wuerzele (talk) 08:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The following recent review articles may be used to improve the health aspects in this article:

• Feng, Yudong; Tu, Chen; Li, Ruijie; Wu, Di; Yang, Jie; Xia, Yankai; Peijnenburg, Willie J.G.M.; Luo, Yongming (2023). "A systematic review of the impacts of exposure to micro- and nano-plastics on human tissue accumulation and health". Eco-Environment & Health (Review). 2 (4): 195–207. doi:10.1016/j.eehl.2023.08.002.
• Zuri, Giuseppina; Karanasiou, Angeliki; Lacorte, Sílvia (2023). "Human biomonitoring of microplastics and health implications: A review". Environmental Research (Review). 237: 116966. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2023.116966.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link)
• Barceló, Damià; Picó, Yolanda; Alfarhan, Ahmed H. (2023). "Microplastics: Detection in human samples, cell line studies, and health impacts". Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology (Review). 101: 104204. doi:10.1016/j.etap.2023.104204.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link)
• Li, Yue; Tao, Le; Wang, Qiong; Wang, Fengbang; Li, Gang; Song, Maoyong (2023). "Potential Health Impact of Microplastics: A Review of Environmental Distribution, Human Exposure, and Toxic Effects". Environment & Health (Review). 1 (4): 249–257. doi:10.1021/envhealth.3c00052.

--Leyo 13:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2024 and 13 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): OAovon4 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by OAovon4 (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)