Cited by 619Microplastics and Plastic PollutionEnvironmental Toxicology and EcotoxicologyPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts

Uptake and effects of microplastic textile fibers on freshwater crustacean Daphnia magna

Jemec, Anita, Horvat, Petra, Kunej, Urban, Bele, Marjan, Kržan, Andrej·2016·Environmental Pollution

Abstract

Microplastic fibers (MP) from textile weathering and washing are increasingly being recognized as environmental pollutants. The majority of studies on the bioavailability and effects of microplastic focused on small polystyrene spherical plastic particles, while less data are available for fibers and for other materials besides polystyrene. We investigated the ingestion and effects of ground polyethylene terephthalate (PET) textile microfibers (length range: 62-1400 μm, width 31-528 μm, thickness 1-21.5 μm) on the freshwater zooplankton crustacean Daphnia magna after a 48 h exposure and subsequent 24 h of recovery in MP free medium and algae. The majority of ingested fibers by D. magna were around 300 μm, but also some very large twisted MP fibers around 1400 μm were found inside the gut. Exposure to these fibers results in increased mortality of daphnids after 48 h only in the case where daphnids were not pre-fed with algae prior to experiment, but no effect was found when daphnids were fed before the experiments. Regardless of the feeding regime, daphnids were not able to recover from MP exposure after additional 24 h incubation period in a MP free medium with algae. The uptake and effects of PET textile MP on D. magna are presented here for the first time.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.10.037

Cites

34 of 34 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?

  • 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.”

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jemec, A., Horvat, P., Kunej, U., Bele, M., & Kržan, A.
Affiliations
  • National Institute of Chemistry (SI)
  • University of Ljubljana (SI)
Venue
Environmental Pollution
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-12
Volume
219
Pages
201-209
ISSN
0269-7491 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2542415799
Cited by
619
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 72 · 2024: 62 · 2023: 84 · 2022: 75 · 2021: 104 · 2020: 67 · 2019: 73 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 14
FWCI
21.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Environmental Pollution (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Derelict Fishing Gear Management System in the Adriatic Region
  • European Union
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
microplastic fibers, textile microfibers, polyethylene terephthalate, Daphnia magna, microplastic ingestion, mortality, recovery after exposure, freshwater zooplankton, microplastic pollution
MeSH terms
Animals, Daphnia, Eating, Fresh Water, Particle Size, Plastics, Polystyrenes, Textiles, Water Pollutants, Chemical, Zooplankton

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