The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
PET microplastics do not negatively affect the survival, development, metabolism and feeding activity of the freshwater invertebrate Gammarus pulex
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“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”
From Microplastic Effect Thresholds for Freshwater Benthic Macroinvertebrates (2018) · cites this paper as [14]
In the citing paper
“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”
From Microplastic Effect Thresholds for Freshwater Benthic Macroinvertebrates (2018) · cites this paper as [14]
In the citing paper
“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”
From Microplastic Effect Thresholds for Freshwater Benthic Macroinvertebrates (2018) · cites this paper as [14]
In the citing paper
“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”
From Microplastic Effect Thresholds for Freshwater Benthic Macroinvertebrates (2018) · cites this paper as [14]
Citations
Cites
Lost at sea: where is all the plastic?
Thompson, R. C., Olsen, Y., Mitchell, R. P., Davis, A., Rowland, S. J., John, A. W. G., McGonigle, D., & Russell, A. E. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1094559 · Cited by 7,765
Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: A review
Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Halsband, C., & Galloway, T. S. (2011) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.09.025 · Cited by 6,023
Hidalgo-Ruz, V., Gutow, L., Thompson, R. C., & Thiel, M. (2012) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es2031505 · Cited by 5,440
Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., & Klages, M. (2015) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-16510-3 · Cited by 3,513
Microscopic anatomy of invertebrates
Harrison, F. W. (1991) · Wiley-Liss eBooks · Cited by 2,736
Auta, H. S., Emenike, C. U., & Fauziah, S. H. (2017) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2017.02.013 · Cited by 2,649
Eerkes-Medrano, D., Thompson, R. C., & Aldridge, D. C. (2015) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2015.02.012 · Cited by 2,638
von Moos, N., Burkhardt-Holm, P., & Köhler, A. (2012) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es302332w · Cited by 1,697
Microplastics in freshwater ecosystems: what we know and what we need to know
Wagner, M., Scherer, C., Alvarez-Muñoz, D., Brennholt, N., Bourrain, X., Buchinger, S., Fries, E., Grosbois, C., Klasmeier, J., Marti, T., et al. (2014) · Environmental Sciences Europe · doi:10.1186/s12302-014-0012-7 · Cited by 1,543
Self-citationMintenig, S. M., Int-Veen, I., Löder, M. G. J., Primpke, S., & Gerdts, G. (2016) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2016.11.015 · Cited by 1,490
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Impacts of polystyrene microplastic on the gut barrier, microbiota and metabolism of mice
Jin, Y., Lu, L., Tu, W., Luo, T., & Fu, Z. (2019) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.353 · Cited by 1,100
Effect of microplastics in water and aquatic systems
Issac, M. N., & Kandasubramanian, B. (2021) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-021-13184-2 · Cited by 919
Xuan, L., Ju, Z., Skonieczna, M., Zhou, P., & Huang, R. (2023) · MedComm · doi:10.1002/mco2.327 · Cited by 911
Huang, W., Song, B., Liang, J., Niu, Q., Zeng, G., Shen, M., Deng, J., Luo, Y., Wen, X., & Zhang, Y. (2020) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124187 · Cited by 823
Burns, E. E., & Boxall, A. B. A. (2018) · Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry · doi:10.1002/etc.4268 · Cited by 713
Metadata
- 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
- 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
