Microplastics in Talitrus saltator (Crustacea, Amphipoda): new evidence of ingestion from natural contexts

Iannilli, Valentina; Gennaro, Alessia; Lecce, Francesca; Sighicelli, Maria; Falconieri, M.; Pietrelli, Loris; Poeta, Gianluca; Battisti, Corrado

doi:10.1007/s11356-018-2932-z

Cited by 49 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, it has been shown that larger invertebrate species ingest microplastics, mistaking them for their natural prey because of similarities in shape, size and color, e.g., mistaking them for plankton [66]- [73]. There is some worry that microplastics accumulate along the food chain [74] [75] [76] with the accumulation of microplastics in the digestive tract of Talitrus saltator (Crustacea, Amphipoda), a species which is heavily fed upon by birds, given as an example [77]. Lastly, there is also the worry that ultimately microplastics can Diversity (CBD) reported that man-made marine litter has known negative impacts on 663 species studied [90].…”

Section: Composition Of Microplastics Their Distribution In the Envimentioning

confidence: 99%

Microplastics and Wastewater Treatment Plants—A Review

Habib¹,

Thiemann²,

Kendi³

2020

JWARP

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The emission of microplastics into nature poses a threat to aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Their penetration of the food chain presents a danger to human health as well. Wastewater treatment plants can be seen as the last barrier between microplastics and the environment. This review focuses on the impact of waste treatment plants in retaining microplastics. Studies show that no wastewater treatment method leads to a complete retention of microplastics, and so wastewater treatment plants themselves are viewed as point sources for the discharge of microplastics into the aquatic environment. Problems associated with the utilization of microplastic loaded sewage sludge are also discussed in the review. Journal of Water Resource and Protection found as micropellets in cosmetic formulations and in facial cleaners and body scrubs (median size of 0.2 -0.4 mm), as microspherules in toothpastes (2 -5 μm in size), as well as in scrubbers used for air-blasting surfaces to remove paints and rust [25] and as drilling fluids in oil and gas exploration. A newer application is their use in drug delivery systems [26] [27]. In addition, synthetic polymer containing microparticles can also be released by the degradation of materials. The release of microfibers as a result of the washing of textiles has been widely reported as a source of microplastics [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]. These synthetic fibers, released by washing machines, are transported to waste water treatment plants [29] [33], where a considerable amount of them pass through the different treatment stages into the effluents due to their smaller size and enter the aquatic environment. It is estimated that around 35% of microplastics reaching the ocean are from synthetic textiles [34].Inventories of microplastics entering the environment have been attempted by organizations in different countries. A breakdown of the sources of microplastics in Sweden has been provided by Magnusson [35], which is given in detail below as an example of typical microplastic streams in developed countries. There is microplastic emission from plastic production, sandblasting material, cosmetic products, pharmaceutical drugs, textiles, road material and coatings. Using a spill factor of 0.04%, which was also used by Sundt et al. [26] for the estimation of pellet loss from the Norwegian plastic production plants, K. Magnusson et al. [35] have calculated a direct micropellet emission of 298 tons per year. In addition to that, there is loss due to the handling of plastic pellets which is set at between 0.0005% and 0.01%, adding another 12 -235 tons of microplastics emitted into the environment. These numbers were modeled on emission factors proposed by Lassen et al. [36] for the Danish production industry. However, no actual measured numbers of emissions of microplastics during production exist.The use of microplastics (e.g. of urea formaldehyde resins) in abrasive products for sandblasting has been deemed to be limited, and the use of these materials in Swedish shipyards is strictly regulated...

show abstract

Section: Composition Of Microplastics Their Distribution In the Envimentioning

confidence: 99%

Microplastics and Wastewater Treatment Plants—A Review

Habib¹,

Thiemann²,

Kendi³

2020

JWARP

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With the establishment of the protected area, most of the research was directed to the knowledge of flora, vegetation, fauna and other ecosystem components (Battisti, 2006a), and partly included in the activities of the local research station settled by LTER -Long Term Ecological Research (Bertoni, 2012). More specifically, this site has been the subject of studies on microphytes (diatoms: Della Bella et al, 2006Bella et al, , 2007, macrophytes (Guidi, 2006;Buccomino & Leporatti, 2009;Nimis et al, 2020;specific research and reviews: Lucchese, 1996;Aglitti et al, 2006;Fanelli, 2006;Santoro et al, 2012;Acosta et al, 2013;Del Vecchio et al 2018;Ioni et al, 2020;floristic notes: Bartolucci & Iocchi, 2007;Anzalone et al, 2010;Fanelli et al, 2011;Fabrini, 2019), microfaunal benthos (Foraminifera, Ostracoda and others: Nicoletti et al, 2006;Raffi et al, 2018;Di Bella et al, 2020), freshwater macro-benthos (Gramegna et al, 2006), Crustacea Amphipoda (Iannilli et al, 2018), non-native Crustacea (Chiesa, 2006;Chiesa et al, 2006;Scalici et al, 2009;Scalici et al, 2010), freshwater and terrestrial Mollusca (Minganti & Zocchi, 2006), marine Mollusca (Pessolano et al, 2006; notes: e.g. Amati et al, 2019;Amati et al, 2020;Battisti, 2020;Giannuzzi-Savelli et al, 2020), Chilopoda (Zapparoli, 2006), Hymenoptera (Di Giovanni & Reshchikov, 2016), Odonata…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vertebrates in the “Palude di Torre Flavia” Special Protection Area (Lazio, central Italy): an updated checklist

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Here we present the checklist of the vertebrates of the “Palude di Torre Flavia”, a protected area in Tyrrhenian central Italy (Special Protection Area according to the Directive 2009/147/EC). To draw up the checklist, we collated all the records found in the literature, in private collections, and in the Ornitho.it website database, as well as sporadic historical observations. We obtained evidence documented between 1981 and 2020 for 291 taxa of which 259 native, 26 allochthonous and 6 domesticated species in 5 classes: 5 actinopterygians (4 native species and 1 allochtonous), 2 amphibians, 20 reptiles (11 native species and 9 allochthonous; the last being all freshwater terrapins), 244 birds (including 14 non-native taxa and 6 domestic forms) and 20 mammals (including 2 allochthonous). Forty-three species are listed as of conservation concern on a national scale. The area has shown to be an important biodiversity hotspot, and a major stopover site for migrating birds. Further research should be focused on some still poorly investigated taxonomic groups, in particular: Actinopterygii, Amphibia Salamandridae, Carnivora Mustelidae, and Chiroptera.

show abstract

“…Moreover, many invertebrates feed on natural wrack, playing a crucial role in the recycling of nutrients in coastal habitats [64,65]. On the other hand, some studies proved that wrack consumers can ingest marine plastic litter accumulated on wrack [66,67]. Other animals can feed on the wrack consumers [3,68], so the presence of plastics and toxic elements (i.e., cigarette butts) in this natural wrack could also promote cascading effects on the food chain.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatio-Temporal Variability of Anthropogenic and Natural Wrack Accumulations along the Driftline: Marine Litter Overcomes Wrack in the Northern Sandy Beaches of Portugal

Guerrero‐Meseguer

Veiga

Rubal

2020

JMSE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marine litter can end up deposited on sandy beaches and become entangled in the natural wrack, threatening its roles in ecosystems. However, it is currently unknown whether the storage of both artificial and natural accumulations on sandy beaches is correlated. Here, we quantified and compared, by first time, the litter and natural wrack on five sandy beaches in the north of Portugal. Results showed that the amount of marine litter and natural wrack were not correlated. Most of the sandy beaches had more litter than wrack and both artificial and natural accumulations disclosed high spatio-temporal variability. In summer, annual and opportunistic macroalgae dominated the wrack, while the litter was mainly formed by cigarette butts and leftover food. In winter, perennial taxa were more abundant in the wrack and plastics from mussel farming and cotton bud sticks dominated the litter. The macroalga Fucus spp., plastic pieces and materials from fishing were frequent in both periods. This study confirms that, currently, more litter than natural wrack reaches the Northern Portuguese sandy beaches, evidencing the need to take urgent measures against this contamination. Future management measures should consider this spatio-temporal variability to quantify both depositions.

show abstract

Microplastics in Talitrus saltator (Crustacea, Amphipoda): new evidence of ingestion from natural contexts

Cited by 49 publications

References 30 publications

Microplastics and Wastewater Treatment Plants—A Review

Microplastics and Wastewater Treatment Plants—A Review

Vertebrates in the “Palude di Torre Flavia” Special Protection Area (Lazio, central Italy): an updated checklist

Spatio-Temporal Variability of Anthropogenic and Natural Wrack Accumulations along the Driftline: Marine Litter Overcomes Wrack in the Northern Sandy Beaches of Portugal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About