Rebuttal to “Reply to road markings and microplastics…” by Järlskog et al

A rebuttal to “Reply to road markings and microplastics- a critical literature review” by Järlskog et al. is necessary because authors of the “Reply…” simultaneously agree with the major issues raised in the review and try to discredit it through presenting a different perspective; thus, clarifications of some key issues are due. In response to “binders derived from, e.g., modified rosin oils are still polymers” (“Reply…”, p. 3), to confirm our claim that such materials are not necessarily polymeric, we are providing a Gel Permeation Chromatography spectrum of an esterified rosin designed for the use as a binder in thermoplastic road markings. Hence, while the value of the “Reply…” is in highlighting differences in definitions, it is unfortunate that no new knowledge about microplastics originating from road markings was provided and none of the multiple research needs and uncertainties were clarified.