Effects of synthetic and natural microfibers on Daphnia magna—Are they dependent on microfiber type?
Abstract
Microfibers, which are sourced from textiles and some products from the fishery industry, are the biggest contributors to microplastic pollution in aquatic ecosystems. In addition to these synthetic microfibers, naturally derived microfibers can also be found in aquatic environments. However, there are limited studies on the ecotoxicity of natural microfibers. To shed light on this topic, this study assessed and compared the toxicity of natural and synthetic microfibers on Daphnia magna, using lyocell, polyester (PET) and polypropylene (PP) microfibers. To evaluate the adverse effect of microfibers on D. magna, after effects including depuration, food intake, growth, mortality, and immobilization rate were continually observed for up to 96 h after the initial 48 h of exposure to the microfibers. Immobilization rate decreased in the following order: PP, PET, and lyocell. However, the depuration of microfibers in the lyocell and PET treatment groups was similar, with higher mortality rates than in the PP treatment group. Furthermore, despite the high rates of food intake following exposure, the lyocell and PET exposed groups exhibited growth inhibition during the same period. This growth inhibition corresponded with, and was likely due to, reductions in the length of gut microvilli, probably an expression of gut damage, which is believed to have reduced nutrient absorption in the affected individuals. Based on the results of this study, it was confirmed that even natural microfibers, and not just synthetic microfibers, can have adverse effects on aquatic organisms. This study confirmed not only the toxicity of microfibers, but also the consequences of their after effects. These results could be the basis for future research on the after effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms and provide directions for further microplastic ecotoxicity studies.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The size of the fibers used in the experiment falls within the documented range of fiber sizes found within zooplankton.
“A broad size range of fibers has been found within zooplankton (Jemec et al., 2016;Kim et al., 2021;Klasios & Tseng, 2023;Md Amin et al., 2020), and the size of the fibers used in our experiment falls within this documented range.”
From No Effect of Realistic Concentrations of Polyester Microplastic Fibers on Freshwater Zooplankton Communities (2024) · cites this paper as Kim et al., 2021
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 65 · Cited by 83
- Authors
- Kim, D., Kim, H., & An, Y.-J.
- Affiliations
- Konkuk University (KR)
- Corresponding author
- An, Youn-Joo
- Venue
- Aquatic Toxicology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-11
- Volume
- 240
- Pages
- 105968
- ISSN
- 0166-445X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3201539783
- Cited by
- 83
- References
- 65
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 15
- FWCI
- 3.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Aquatic Toxicology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning (2020R1A2B5B02001734)
- Korea Institute of Industrial Technology
- Ministry of Environment
- National Research Foundation of Korea
- 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
- microfibers, synthetic microfibers, Daphnia magna, lyocell, polyesters, polypropylene, immobilization, depuration, growth inhibition, dietary intake
- MeSH terms
- Microplastics, Animals, Daphnia, Plastics, Water Pollutants, Chemical, Ecosystem
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