Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 188

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessment tools for microplastics and natural fibres ingested by fish in an urbanised estuary

Open access
Halstead, Jennifer E., Smith, James A., Carter, Elizabeth A., Lay, Peter A., Johnston, Emma L.·2018·Environmental Pollution

Abstract

Microplastics and fibres occur in high concentrations along urban coastlines, but the occurrence of microplastic ingestion by fishes in these areas requires further investigation. Herein, the ingestion of debris (i.e., synthetic and natural fibres and synthetic fragments of various polymer types) by three benthic-foraging fish species Acanthopagrus australis (yellowfin bream), Mugil cephalus (sea mullet) and Gerres subfasciatus (silverbiddy) in Sydney Harbour, Australia has been quantified and chemically speciated by vibrational spectroscopy to identify the polymer type. Ingested debris were quantified using gut content analysis, and identified using attenuated total reflectance Fourier transform infrared (ATR-FTIR) and Raman microspectroscopies in combination with principal component analysis (PCA). The occurrence of debris ingestion at the time of sampling ranged from 21 to 64% for the three species, and the debris number ranged from 0.2 to 4.6 items per fish for the different species, with ∼53% of debris being microplastic. There was a significant difference in the amount of debris ingested among species; however, there was no difference among species when debris counts were standardised to fish weight or gut content weight, indicating that these species ingest a similar concentration of debris relative to their ingestion rate of other material. ATR-FTIR microspectroscopy successfully identified 72% of debris. Raman spectroscopy contributed an additional 1% of successful identification. In addition, PCA was used to non-subjectively classify the ATR-FTIR spectra resulting in the identification of an additional 9% of the debris. The most common microplastics found were polyester (PET), acrylic-polyester blend, and rayon (semi-synthetic) fibres. The potential of using Raman microspectroscopy for debris identification was investigated and provided additional information about the nature of the debris as well as the presence of specific dyes (and hence potential toxicity).

Overview

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.envpol.2017.11.085

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 20 references

Cited by

See all 188

Metadata

Authors
Halstead, J. E., Smith, J. A., Carter, E. A., Lay, P. A., & Johnston, E. L.
Venue
Environmental Pollution
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-03
Volume
234
Pages
552-561
ISSN
0269-7491 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2776443707
Cited by
188
References
20
FWCI
5.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Assessment tools for microplastics and natural fibres ingested by fish in an urbanised estuary. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.11.085
The paper
Halstead, J. E., Smith, J. A., Carter, E. A., Lay, P. A., & Johnston, E. L. (2018). Assessment tools for microplastics and natural fibres ingested by fish in an urbanised estuary. Environmental Pollution. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.11.085

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.