Cited by 233Microplastics and Plastic PollutionEnvironmental Toxicology and EcotoxicologyPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts

PET microplastics do not negatively affect the survival, development, metabolism and feeding activity of the freshwater invertebrate Gammarus pulex

Weber, Annkatrin, Scherer, Christian, Brennholt, Nicole, Reifferscheid, Georg, Wagner, Martin·2018·Environmental Pollution

Abstract

Over the past decade, microscopic plastic debris, known as microplastics, emerged as a contaminant of concern in marine and freshwater ecosystems. Although regularly detected in aquatic environments, the toxicity of those synthetic particles is not well understood. To address this, we investigated whether the exposure to microplastics adversely affects the amphipod Gammarus pulex, a key freshwater invertebrate. Juvenile (6-9 mm) and adult (12-17 mm) individuals were exposed to irregular, fluorescent polyethylene terephthalate fragments (PET, 10-150 μm; 0.8-4,000 particles mL-1) for 24 h. Results show that body burden after 24 h depends on the dose and age of G. pulex with juveniles ingesting more microplastics than adults. After chronic exposure over 48 d, microplastics did not significantly affect survival, development (molting), metabolism (glycogen, lipid storage) and feeding activity of G. pulex. This demonstrates that even high concentrations of PET particles did not negatively interfere with the analyzed endpoints. These results contradict previous research on marine crustaceans. Differences may result from variations in the exposure regimes (e.g., duration, particle concentrations), plastic characteristics (e.g., type, size, shape, additives) as well as the species-specific morphological, physiological and behavioral traits. As a detritivorous shredder G. pulex is adapted to feed on non-digestible materials and might, therefore, be less sensitive towards exposure to synthetic particles. Accordingly, we argue that the autecology needs to be taken into account and that research should focus on identifying traits that render species susceptible to microplastic exposure.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.11.014

Cites

65 of 65 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”
  • After taking up PET microplastics, Gammarus pulex showed no effects on survival, molting, metabolism, or feeding activity.

    “However, no effects were reported on the survival, molting, metabolism and feeding activity of Gammarus pulex after the uptake of polyethylene terephtalate (PET) microplastics.14”
  • Weber et al. (2018) found no effects on G. pulex feeding activity after exposure to PET microplastics in water.

    “These results are in accordance with Weber et al., 2018, where no effects on the feeding activity of G. pulex were found after an exposure to PET microplastics in water.14”
  • 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

1 of the 66 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Weber, A., Scherer, C., Brennholt, N., Reifferscheid, G., & Wagner, M.
Affiliations
  • Goethe University Frankfurt (DE)
  • Federal Institute of Hydrology (DE)
Corresponding author
Weber, Annkatrin
Venue
Environmental Pollution
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-03
Volume
234
Pages
181-189
ISSN
0269-7491 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2769974810
Cited by
233
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 1
FWCI
9.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Environmental Pollution (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • German Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure
  • German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (02WRS1378, 01UU1603, 03F0789D)
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, polyethylene terephthalate, Gammarus pulex, Amphipoda, freshwater invertebrates, microplastic ingestion, body burden, chronic toxicity, molting, energy reserves, glycogen, fat deposition, feeding activity, survival, species-specific susceptibility, detritivory, plastic pollution, freshwater ecosystems
MeSH terms
Animals, Eating, Glycogen, Polyethylene Terephthalates, Water Pollutants, Chemical, Molting, Amphipoda, Lipid Metabolism

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