Ecotoxicological effects of microplastics on biota: a review

Anbumani, Sadasivam; Kakkar, Poonam

doi:10.1007/s11356-018-1999-x

Cited by 661 publications

(245 citation statements)

References 145 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

222

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…). It may also be a result of the particles blocking the passage of food through the digestive tract or causing pseudo‐satiation, which stops the organism from feeding (Anbumani and Kakkar ). We looked further into this trend by comparing effect sizes from all lab studies that tested the effects of microplastics to crustaceans.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For the smaller particles, this trend may be due to their increased bioavailability (Jeong et al 2017) or due to their potential to translocate across the cell membrane (Browne et al 2008). It may also be a result of the particles blocking the passage of food through the digestive tract or causing pseudo-satiation, which stops the organism from feeding (Anbumani and Kakkar 2018). We looked further into this trend by comparing effect sizes from all lab studies that tested the effects of microplastics to crustaceans.…”

Section: A Deeper Dive Into Studies Testing the Effects Of Microplasticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What is known and unknown about the effects of plastic pollution: A meta‐analysis and systematic review

Bucci

Túlio

Rochman

2020

Ecological Applications

457

263

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As a consequence of the global ubiquity of plastic pollution, scientists, decision‐makers, and the public often ask whether macroplastics (>5 mm) and microplastics (<5 mm) have a realized ecological threat. In 2016, we conducted a systematic review of the literature and made a call for further research testing hypotheses about ecological effects. In the subsequent years, the amount of relevant research has risen tremendously. Here, we reassess the literature to determine the current weight of evidence about the effects of plastic pollution across all levels of biological organization. Our data spans marine, freshwater, and terrestrial environments. We extracted data from 139 lab and field studies testing 577 independent effects across a variety of taxa and with various types, sizes, and shapes of plastic. Overall, 59% of the tested effects were detected. Of these, 58% were due to microplastics and 42% were due to macroplastics. Of the effects that were not detected, 94% were from microplastics and 6% were from macroplastics. We found evidence that whether or not an effect is detected, as well as the severity and direction of the effect, is driven by dose, particle shape, polymer type, and particle size. Based on our analyses, there is no doubt that macroplastics are causing ecological effects, however, the effects of microplastics are much more complex. We also assessed the environmental relevancy of experimental studies by comparing the doses used in each exposure to the concentrations and sizes of microplastics found in the environment. We determined that only 17% of the concentrations used in experimental studies have been found in nature, and that 80% of particle sizes used in experiments fall below the size range of the majority of environmental sampling. Based on our systematic review and meta‐analysis, we make a call for future work that recognizes the complexity of microplastics and designs tests to better understand how different types, sizes, shapes, doses, and exposure durations affect wildlife. We also call for more ecologically and environmentally relevant studies, particularly in freshwater and terrestrial environments.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Deeper Dive Into Studies Testing the Effects Of Microplasticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is known and unknown about the effects of plastic pollution: A meta‐analysis and systematic review

Bucci

Túlio

Rochman

2020

Ecological Applications

457

263

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The synthetic fibers used to make textiles (e.g., clothing, upholstery, and rugs) shed MFs during washing and regular use; a single garment can shed over 1,900 MFs per wash [4]. MFs enter the aquatic environment via sewage release, stormwater runoff, or atmospheric deposition [3,[5][6][7] where they accumulate and impact biota [8]. Polyester (PES) and polypropylene (PP) are the most commonly used a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 (Ted Pella, Redding, CA) into MFs and stored in a clean glass bottle until use.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chronic microfiber exposure in adult Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes)

Chernick

Lewis

et al. 2020

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Microplastic fibers (MFs) pollute aquatic habitats globally via sewage release, stormwater runoff, or atmospheric deposition. Of the synthetic MFs, polyester (PES) and polypropylene (PP) are the most common. Field studies show that fish ingest large quantities of MFs. However, few laboratory studies have addressed host responses, particularly at the organ and tissue levels. Adult Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes), a laboratory model fish, were exposed to aqueous concentrations of PES or PP MFs (10,000 MFs/L) for 21 days. Medaka egested 1,367 ± 819 PES MFs (0.1 ± 0.04 mg) and 157 ± 105 PP MFs (1.4 ± 0.06 mg) per 24 hrs, with PP egestion increasing over time. Exposure did not result in changes in body condition, gonadosomatic-or hepatosomatic indices. PES exposure resulted in no reproductive changes, but females exposed to PP MFs produced more eggs over time. MF exposure did not affect embryonic mortality, development, or hatching. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) of gills revealed denuding of epithelium on arches, fusion of primary lamellae, and increased mucus. Histologic sections revealed aneurysms in secondary lamellae, epithelial lifting, and swellings of inner opercular membrane that altered morphology of rostral most gill lamellae. SEM and histochemical analyses showed increased mucous cells and secretions on epithelium of foregut; however, overt abrasions with sloughing of cells were absent. For these reasons, increased focus at the tissue and cell levels proved necessary to appreciate toxicity associated with MFs. PLOS ONEPLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.

show abstract

“…Though it is still hard to draw definitive conclusions from this literature base on the relative threat microplastics pose to soil biota, these early studies concur with the wider base of marine microplastic toxicology in that there is worrying potential (Anbumani & Kakkar, 2018;Rezania et al, 2018). However, experiments showing significant harm sometimes do so only with microplastic concentrations beyond what is common in the current environment (Cunningham & Sigwart, 2019;Lenz, Enders, & Gissel, 2016;Phuong et al, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 78%

Towards an ecology of soil microplastics

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Microplastic pollution is a topic of increasing concern for the world's oceans, freshwaters and, most recently, soils. Microplastics have been found in soils across the globe. Like other anthropogenic pollutants, they can negatively affect a range of soil organisms through several mechanisms, though often dependent on particle size, shape and polymer type. However, microplastics are unique among pollutants due to the diversity of ways in which soil organisms may themselves be able to affect their occurrence and distribution and mediate their effects on the rest of the soil food web. In this review, we argue for a more explicitly ecological framing of this novel issue for the soil environment and discuss their potential interactions with soil communities, including microplastic formation via microbial and faunal fragmentation of large plastic debris and organisms such as earthworms placing microplastic particles in unique pedological contexts they could not otherwise reach. Ecological interactions may be crucial for dictating microplastics’ ultimate fate and effect on terrestrial ecosystems. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

show abstract

Ecotoxicological effects of microplastics on biota: a review

Cited by 661 publications

References 145 publications

What is known and unknown about the effects of plastic pollution: A meta‐analysis and systematic review

What is known and unknown about the effects of plastic pollution: A meta‐analysis and systematic review

Chronic microfiber exposure in adult Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes)

Towards an ecology of soil microplastics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About