Cited by 192Microplastics and Plastic PollutionEnvironmental Toxicology and EcotoxicologyMarine animal studies overview

Microplastic Study Reveals the Presence of Natural and Synthetic Fibres in the Diet of King Penguins (Aptenodytes patagonicus) Foraging from South Georgia

Open access
Le Guen, Camille, Suaria, Giuseppe, Sherley, Richard B., Ryan, Peter G., Aliani, Stefano, Boehme, Lars, Brierley, Andrew S.·2020·Environment International

Abstract

Marine ecosystems are experiencing substantial disturbances due to climate change and overfishing, and plastic pollution is an additional growing threat. Microfibres are among the most pervasive pollutants in the marine environment, including in the Southern Ocean. However, evidence for microfibre contamination in the diet of top predators in the Southern Ocean is rare. King Penguins (Aptenodytes patagonicus) feed on mesopelagic fish, which undergo diel vertical migrations towards the surface at night. Microfibres are concentrated in surface waters and sediments but can also be concentrated in fish, therefore acting as contamination vectors for diving predators feeding at depth. In this study, we investigate microfibre contamination of King Penguin faecal samples collected in February and March 2017 at South Georgia across three groups: incubating, chick-rearing and non-breeding birds. After a KOH digestion to dissolve the organic matter and a density separation step using a NaCl solution, the samples were filtered to collect microfibres. A total of 77% of the penguin faecal samples (36 of 47) contained microfibres. Fibres were measured and characterized using Fourier-Transform Infrared spectroscopy to determine their polymeric identity. Most fibres (88%) were made of natural cellulosic materials (e.g. cotton, linen), with only 12% synthetic (e.g. polyester, nylon) or semi-synthetic (e.g. rayon). An average of 21.9 ± 5.8 microfibres g−1 of faeces (lab dried mass) was found, with concentrations more than twice as high in incubating penguins than in penguins rearing chicks. Incubating birds forage further north at the Antarctic Polar Front and travel longer distances from South Georgia than chick-rearing birds. This suggests that long-distance travelling penguins are probably more exposed to the risk of ingesting microfibres when feeding north of the Antarctic Polar Front, which might act as a semi-permeable barrier for microfibres. Microfibres could therefore provide a signature for foraging location in King Penguins.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.envint.2019.105303

Cites

104 of 104 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Natural and semisynthetic microfibers have been found in wild marine organisms.

    “Recently, some studies underlined the presence of natural and semisynthetic microfibers in wild marine organisms [86,87,88,89].”

    From Is Wild Marine Biota Affected by Microplastics? (2022) · cites this paper as [89]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Arthur, C., Baker, J., Bamford, H., 2009. Proceedings of the International Research Workshop on the Occurrence, Effects and Fate of Microplastic Marine Debris, 9-11 September 2008, NOAA Technical, Memorandum NOS-OR&R30.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Le Guen, C., Suaria, G., Sherley, R. B., Ryan, P. G., Aliani, S., Boehme, L., & Brierley, A. S.
Affiliations
  • Istituto di Scienze Marine del Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (IT)
  • University of Cape Town (ZA)
  • University of St Andrews (GB)
Venue
Environment International
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-01
Volume
134
Pages
105303
ISSN
0160-4120 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2983476686
Cited by
192
References
104
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 23 · 2017: 1
FWCI
6.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environment International (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • St Andrews Research Repository (St Andrews Research Repository) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Natural Environment Research Council (CASS-129)
  • British Antarctic Survey
  • Trans-Antarctic Association
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 › Ecology › Marine animal studies overview
Keywords
microfibers, king penguin, Aptenodytes patagonicus, plastic pollution, penguin diet, fecal analysis, natural fibers, synthetic fibers, cellulose fibers, foraging sites, Southern Ocean, South Georgia, Antarctic Polar Front, top predators, mesopelagic fish, diel vertical migration
MeSH terms
Microplastics, Animals, Antarctic Regions, Diet, Fisheries, Ecosystem, Spheniscidae

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