Cited by 628Microplastics and Plastic PollutionEnvironmental Toxicology and EcotoxicologyPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts

Responses of Hyalella azteca to acute and chronic microplastic exposures

Au, Sarah Y., Bruce, Terri F., Bridges, William C., Klaine, Stephen J.·2015·Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

Abstract

Limited information is available on the presence of microplastics in freshwater systems, and even less is known about the toxicological implications of the exposure of aquatic organisms to plastic particles. The present study was conducted to evaluate the effects of microplastic ingestion on the freshwater amphipod, Hyalella azteca. Hyalella azteca was exposed to fluorescent polyethylene microplastic particles and polypropylene microplastic fibers in individual 250-mL chambers to determine 10-d mortality. In acute bioassays, polypropylene microplastic fibers were significantly more toxic than polyethylene microplastic particles; 10-d lethal concentration 50% values for polyethylene microplastic particles and polypropylene microplastic fibers were 4.64 × 10(4) microplastics/mL and 71.43 microplastics/mL, respectively. A 42-d chronic bioassay using polyethylene microplastic particles was conducted to quantify effects on reproduction, growth, and egestion. Chronic exposure to polyethylene microplastic particles significantly decreased growth and reproduction at the low and intermediate exposure concentrations. During acute exposures to polyethylene microplastic particles, the egestion times did not significantly differ from the egestion of normal food materials in the control; egestion times for polypropylene microplastic fibers were significantly slower than the egestion of food materials in the control. Amphipods exposed to polypropylene microplastic fibers also had significantly less growth. The greater toxicity of microplastic fibers than microplastic particles corresponded with longer residence times for the fibers in the gut. The difference in residence time might have affected the ability to process food, resulting in an energetic effect reflected in sublethal endpoints.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/etc.3093

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Freshwater species take up microplastics from sediments, and the ingestion capacity of freshwater invertebrates varies with feeding type.

    “Previous studies have indeed demonstrated that microplastics are taken up from sediments by freshwater species10−15 and that the capacity of freshwater invertebrates to ingest microplastics depends on their feeding type.15”
  • Exposure to polyethylene microplastics reduced both growth and reproduction in Hyalella azteca.

    “Also, a reduction in the growth and reproduction of Hyalella azteca was found after the exposure to polyethylene (PE) microplastics.11”
  • Based on excretion studies with other freshwater amphipods, G. pulex is expected to completely depurate if given enough time and if ingestion stops.

    “Based on microplastic excretion studies performed with other freshwater amphipods exposed to different microplastic types,11,12G. pulex is expected to be able to completely depurate if enough time is given and if the ingestion of particles concludes.”
  • Growth reduction of G. pulex was a sublethal effect caused by reduced food assimilation due to PS microplastic ingestion and by gut blockage from longer excretion time.

    “our results indicate that growth reduction of G. pulex was a sublethal effect caused by a lower ability of these organisms to assimilate food due to the ingestion of PS microplastics,11,12 as well as by the gut blockage by these particles due to a longer excretion time needed to depurate their gut.11”
  • Survival of G. pulex and H. azteca was unaffected by PET and PE microplastics, respectively.

    “For instance, survival of the freshwater amphipods G. pulex and H. azteca were not affected by the exposure to PET and PE microplastics, respectively.11,14”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Au, S. Y., Bruce, T. F., Bridges, W. C., & Klaine, S. J.
Affiliations
  • Clemson University (US)
  • North-West University (ZA)
Corresponding author
Au, Sarah Y.
Venue
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
Published
2015-06-04
Volume
34
Issue
11
Pages
2564-2572
ISSN
  • 0730-7268 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-8618
OpenAlex
W2163417009
Cited by
628
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 71 · 2024: 71 · 2023: 89 · 2022: 97 · 2021: 78 · 2020: 77 · 2019: 53 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 8
FWCI
13.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Boloka Institutional Repository (North-west University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Award N155
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Microplastics and Plastic Pollution
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Environmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Pharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts
Keywords
microplastics, Hyalella azteca, freshwater amphipods, acute toxicity, chronic toxicity, mortality, reproduction, growth, egestion, plastic ingestion, sublethal effects
MeSH terms
Animals, Plastics, Polypropylenes, Reproduction, Water Pollutants, Chemical, Toxicity Tests, Acute, Amphipoda, Toxicity Tests, Chronic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review