Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 270

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Identification of microplastics in surface water and Australian freshwater shrimp Paratya australiensis in Victoria, Australia

Open access
Nan, Bingxu, Su, Lei, Kellar, Claudette, Craig, Nicholas J., Keough, Michael J., Pettigrove, Vincent·2020·Environmental Pollution

Abstract

Compared to marine microplastics research, few studies have bio-monitored microplastics in inland waters. It is also important to understand the microplastics' uptake and their potential risks to freshwater species. The Australian glass shrimp Paratya australiensis (Family: Atyidae) is commonly found in fresh waterbodies in eastern Australia, and are sensitive to anthropogenic stressors but have a wide tolerance range to the natural environmental conditions. This study aimed to understand the microplastics' occurrence and types in water samples and the shrimp P. australiensis, and identify if the shrimp could be a suitable bioindicator for microplastic pollution. Surface water and P. australiensis across ten urban and rural freshwater sites in Victoria were sampled. In total, 30 water samples and 100 shrimp were analysed for microplastic content, and shrimp body weights and sizes were also recorded. Microplastics were picked, photographed and identified using FT-IR microscopy: in water samples, 57.9% of items including suspect items were selected to identify; all microplastics found in shrimp samples were identified. Microplastics were present in the surface waters of all sites, with an average abundance of 0.40 ± 0.27 items/L. A total of 36% of shrimp contained microplastics with an average of 0.52 ± 0.55 items/ind (24 ± 31 items/g). Fibre was the most common shape, and blue was the most frequent colour in both water and shrimp samples. The dominant plastic types were polyester in water samples, and rayon in shrimp samples. Even though results from this study show a relatively low concentration of microplastics in water samples in comparison with global studies, it is worth noticing that microplastics were regularly detected in fresh waterbodies in Victoria, Australia. Compared with water samples, shrimp contained a wider variety of plastic types, suggesting they may potentially behave as passive samplers of microplastics pollution in freshwater environments.

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.2019.113865

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 270

Metadata

Authors
Nan, B., Su, L., Kellar, C., Craig, N. J., Keough, M. J., & Pettigrove, V.
Venue
Environmental Pollution
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-04
Volume
259
Pages
113865
ISSN
0269-7491 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2997129550
Cited by
270
References
4
FWCI
6.93
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: Identification of microplastics in surface water and Australian freshwater shrimp Paratya australiensis in Victoria, Australia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113865
The paper
Nan, B., Su, L., Kellar, C., Craig, N. J., Keough, M. J., & Pettigrove, V. (2020). Identification of microplastics in surface water and Australian freshwater shrimp Paratya australiensis in Victoria, Australia. Environmental Pollution. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113865

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.