The DOI matches its Crossref record; 139 of the 140 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 89 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future?
Open accessAbstract
The effects of microplastics (MP) on aquatic organisms are currently the subject of intense research. Here, we provide a critical perspective on published studies of MP ingestion by aquatic biota. We summarize the available research on MP presence, behaviour and effects on aquatic organisms monitored in the field and on laboratory studies of the ecotoxicological consequences of MP ingestion. We consider MP polymer type, shape, size as well as group of organisms studied and type of effect reported. Specifically, we evaluate whether or not the available laboratory studies of MP are representative of the types of MPs found in the environment and whether or not they have reported on relevant groups or organisms. Analysis of the available data revealed that 1) despite their widespread detection in field-based studies, polypropylene, polyester and polyamide particles were under-represented in laboratory studies; 2) fibres and fragments (800-1600 μm) are the most common form of MPs reported in animals collected from the field; 3) to date, most studies have been conducted on fish; knowledge is needed about the effects of MPs on other groups of organisms, especially invertebrates. Furthermore, there are significant mismatches between the types of MP most commonly found in the environment or reported in field studies and those used in laboratory experiments. Finally, there is an overarching need to understand the mechanism of action and ecotoxicological effects of environmentally relevant concentrations of MPs on aquatic organism health.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This review surveys 157 articles and 612 studies on microplastics in aquatic organisms, finding research skewed toward fish and small crustaceans, PE/PS polymers, and laboratory concentrations often higher than environmental levels. It highlights mismatches between field-detected microplastic shapes, sizes, and polymers and those used in laboratory ecotoxicology, and calls for more environmentally relevant, freshwater, and mechanism-focused work.
Key findings
- Across field and laboratory studies, the most commonly reported microplastics were PE (23%) and PS (22%), followed by PP (12%) and PES (9%); fish were the most studied organism group (44%), followed by crustacea (21% combined), molluscs (14%), and annelid worms (6%).
- Field and laboratory studies were roughly balanced (48% field, 52% laboratory), but fish dominated field studies (23% of all studies) while small crustaceans dominated laboratory studies (17%); 24% of field studies did not report the typology of microplastics present in biota.
- Laboratory studies most often used spherical microplastics (17%) and particles <50 μm (75 of 169 laboratory studies where size was reported), whereas field-collected organisms most often contained fibres (23%) and fragments (21%), with 800–1600 μm and 400–800 μm each reported in 12% of field studies.
- Among 130 studies reporting ecotoxicological effects, crustaceans were most studied (45%), followed by fish (21%), molluscs (18%), annelid worms (7%), echinoderms (7%), and rotifers (2%); ecotoxicological studies used marine organisms 77% of the time versus freshwater organisms 23%.
Methods
- A bibliographic survey was conducted on November 22, 2017 using the Thompson Reuters ISI Web of Science database with the keyword “microplastic*”; 1,637 candidate publications were identified and 157 were retained for analysis.
- Retained studies were summarized by microplastic type, shape, size range, organism group, and ecotoxicological effect; a “study” was defined as an interaction of organism group, MP type, MP shape, and MP size, yielding 612 studies from the 157 articles.
- The review tabulated and summarized published field and laboratory studies; no attempt was made to separate direct ecotoxicological effects from organism responses associated with starvation following MP ingestion.
Limitations
- Stated in the paper: laboratory studies often use unrealistically high MP concentrations; 24% of field studies did not report MP typology; freshwater organisms are under-studied; there is a possible publication bias against negative results; and analytical challenges limit understanding of whether MPs adsorb contaminants once inside organisms.
- Stated in the paper: no attempt was made to separate direct ecotoxicological effects from starvation-related responses, and the review did not include plants or microbes.
- Evident from the text: the review relies on a single database and a single search date, and its findings depend on the author-defined classification criteria and the available published literature.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
73 Not checked yet · 33 Own result · 21 Own interpretation · 18 No basis given · 3 Own method
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our search identified 157 published, peer-reviewed articles which documented a total of 612 studies (listed in supplementary information).”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 2. Methodological approach
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were relatively few studies of PE in vertebrates other than fish.”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.1.1. Types of MPs and target groups reported in field and laboratory studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fish are the most studied organism group in the field (23% of all studies)”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.1.2. Reports of organisms exposed to MPs in field and laboratory conditions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The surveyed publications identified an equivalent number of studies conducted in the field (48%) and laboratory (52%) (Fig. 3A).”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.1.2. Reports of organisms exposed to MPs in field and laboratory conditions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The most common types of MPs reported in biota collected during field sampling include PE (17%), PP (14%), PES (13%), PA (10%) and PS MPs (9%) (Fig. S1).”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.1.2. Reports of organisms exposed to MPs in field and laboratory conditions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the laboratory, smaller particles (b50 μm) were used most commonly (75 / 169 laboratory studies where MP size was reported) (Fig. S2).”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.1.2. Reports of organisms exposed to MPs in field and laboratory conditions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To date, ecotoxicological studies of MPs have been conducted predominantly using marine (77%) as opposed to freshwater (23%) organisms (Fig. 3B).”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.2.1. Organism groups used in ecotoxicological studies with MPs
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“whereas small crustaceans are the group most studied in the laboratory (17% of all studies) (Fig. 3A).”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.1.2. Reports of organisms exposed to MPs in field and laboratory conditions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unfortunately, a sizeable fraction of the field studies (24%) did not report the typology of MPs present in the biota (Fig. S1).”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.1.2. Reports of organisms exposed to MPs in field and laboratory conditions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The size range 800-1600 μm, the most commonly reported from field samples of biota represents a very small fraction of the sizes used in the laboratory (Fig. S2).”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.1.2. Reports of organisms exposed to MPs in field and laboratory conditions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 20
- The quote only partly states this claim. 4
- It may state two separate claims as one. 48
- Borderline: one of the tests for a substantial claim is unclear. 1
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A total of 1637 candidate publications were identified.”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 2. Methodological approach
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fish were the most commonly studied group of organisms (44%), followed by crustacea (21% for large and small crustacea combined), molluscs (14%) and annelid worms (6%) (Fig. 2).”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.1.1. Types of MPs and target groups reported in field and laboratory studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of the 1637 candidate publications, 157 were retained for further analysis.”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 2. Methodological approach
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The presence of PE was reported less commonly in other groups of organisms, with 12 studies on molluscs, seven on small crustaceans and four on annelids (Fig. 2).”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.1.1. Types of MPs and target groups reported in field and laboratory studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The types of MPs most commonly reported across field and laboratory studies include PE (23%) and PS (22%), followed by PP (12%) and PES (9%) (Fig. 1).”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.1.1. Types of MPs and target groups reported in field and laboratory studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Effects of PS MPs have been reported in studies of fish (n = 17) and small crustaceans (n = 19) (Fig. 2).”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.1.1. Types of MPs and target groups reported in field and laboratory studies
plaincorrelationaln = 19- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Polyethylene was the most common type of MP studied in fish, it was reported in 34 studies, or 12% of the total number of studies identified.”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.1.1. Types of MPs and target groups reported in field and laboratory studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In fact, only 8% of the laboratory studies have been performed with PP MPs whereas PS and PE MPs were used in 40% and 33% of the studies respectively (Fig. S1).”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.1.2. Reports of organisms exposed to MPs in field and laboratory conditions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The MP size used or reported in published studies also varies and is related to MP shape (Fig. S2), with almost every shape having been reported across all size ranges (Fig. S2).”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.1.2. Reports of organisms exposed to MPs in field and laboratory conditions
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The size ranges 800-1600 μm (12%) and 400-800 μm (12%) were the most commonly reported in animals collected from the field, followed by 200-400 μm (11%) (Fig. S2).”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.1.2. Reports of organisms exposed to MPs in field and laboratory conditions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fibres and fragments were reported in 23% and 21% of studies, respectively, followed by spheres (11%), film (8%) and pellets (4%) (Fig. S2).”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.1.2. Reports of organisms exposed to MPs in field and laboratory conditions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, in laboratory studies, spherical MPs have been the most commonly used shape (17%) followed by fibres, fragments and unspecified particles (all 3%) (Fig. S2).”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.1.2. Reports of organisms exposed to MPs in field and laboratory conditions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While field studies generally reflect reported plastic production rates, these polymers were not studied with similar frequency in laboratory assays (Fig. S1).”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.1.2. Reports of organisms exposed to MPs in field and laboratory conditions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Among the reports of MPs in marine organisms, fish are the most commonly studied group (25%), followed by molluscs (15%), small crustacea (11%), large crustacea (8%) annelid worms (6%), mammals and echinoderms (both 3%), birds and cnidaria (both 2%), porifera, reptiles and rotifers (all b 1%) (Fig. 3B).”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.2.1. Organism groups used in ecotoxicological studies with MPs
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Multiple freshwater studies only exist for fish (13% overall, 56% of the freshwater studies) and small crustacea (8% overall, 35% of the freshwater studies).”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.2.1. Organism groups used in ecotoxicological studies with MPs
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Other commonly studied species include the freshwater fish Danio rerio (7%) (Khan et al., 2015;Lu et al., 2016;Chen et al., 2017aChen et al., , 2017b;;Sleight et al., 2017;Veneman et al., 2017;Lei et al., 2018)”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.2.1. Organism groups used in ecotoxicological studies with MPs
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Crustaceans were the most commonly studied taxonomic group (45%), followed by fish (21%), molluscs (18%), annelid worms (7%), echinoderms (7%) and rotifers (2%).”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.2.2. Ecotoxicological effects of MPs on aquatic organisms
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Overall, documented effects of MPs on aquatic organisms include reduction of feeding activity (Besseling et al., 2013;de Sá et al., 2015), oxidative stress (Della Torre et al., 2014), genotoxicity (Della Torre et al., 2014), neurotoxicity (Oliveira et al., 2012(Oliveira et al., , 2013;;Luis et al., 2015;Ribeiro et al., 2017), growth delay (Della Torre et al., 2014;Au et al., 2015;Redondo-Hasselerh”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.2.2. Ecotoxicological effects of MPs on aquatic organisms
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Slightly more than half the studies (54%) were conducted using PE MPs.”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.2.3. Interactive ecotoxicological effects of MPs with other contaminants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most studies had been performed on fish (63%), with some studies of molluscs (19%), crustacea (14%) and annelid worms (5%).”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.2.3. Interactive ecotoxicological effects of MPs with other contaminants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Polystyrene (29%), PVC (19%) and PP (4%) MPs were also reported.”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.2.3. Interactive ecotoxicological effects of MPs with other contaminants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Studies examined the combined effects of MPs with legacy POPs (64%), endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs; 17%), metals (10%), antibiotics (7%) and herbicides (2%).”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.2.3. Interactive ecotoxicological effects of MPs with other contaminants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the effects of MPs on freshwater organisms are much less well known.”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 4. Conclusions and future perspectives
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“since these particles, namely PP, are manufactured in large scale and detected in aquatic organisms in the higher quantities than PS”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 4. Conclusions and future perspectives
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The occurrence and accumulation of MPs in the aquatic environment is nowadays an undeniable fact.”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 4. Conclusions and future perspectives
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is also undeniable that a large number of organisms are exposed to these particles and that this exposure may cause a variety of effects and threaten individuals of many different species, the ecosystems they live in and, ultimately, humans.”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 4. Conclusions and future perspectives
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The potential deleterious effects of MPs on aquatic biota have been recognized by the scientific community as demonstrated by the increasing number of studies in the last years focussing primarily on marine biota.”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 4. Conclusions and future perspectives
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, results suggest a knowledge gap on the effects of PE MPs on other organisms beyond fish and PS MPs on all groups of organisms except fish and small crustaceans.”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 4. Conclusions and future perspectives
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Ingestion of PE by fish is both widespread and crosses habitat preferences.”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.1.1. Types of MPs and target groups reported in field and laboratory studies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lusher et al. (2013) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mechanisms of MP action on organism health still poorly understood”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Taxonomic groups in which PS MPs were detected include the marine copepods Acartia spp.and Eurytemora affinis (Setälä et al., 2014), large crustaceans such as the estuarine mysid Neomysis integer (Setälä et al., 2014) and the crab Uca rapax (Brennecke et al., 2015).”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.1.1. Types of MPs and target groups reported in field and laboratory studies
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No attempt was made to separate direct ecotoxicological effects from e.g.organism responses associated with starvation following MP ingestion.”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 2. Methodological approach
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In Sections 3.2.1-3.2.3 where MPs effects are described, only studies which report MP effects on organisms were considered.”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 2. Methodological approach
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“For example, Lusher et al. (2013) showed that over one third of fish examined in their study had ingested MPs, with pelagic and benthic fish displaying similar gut contents, suggesting either a lack of selectivity or widespread presence of PE in both the water column and sediments.”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.1.1. Types of MPs and target groups reported in field and laboratory studies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lusher et al. (2013) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most lab studies are conducted at unrealistically high MP concentrations”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
Borderline substantial claim. It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“The widespread distribution of MPs in aquatic ecosystems (Lusher et al., 2013) and broad range of physicochemical properties makes a wide range of aquatic organisms potentially susceptible to these emerging contaminants.”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.1.1. Types of MPs and target groups reported in field and laboratory studies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lusher et al., 2013 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“there is a possibility that effect studies may be biased towards to a particular type of polymer without due consideration of reported occurrence in organisms and the environment, estimated release to the environment and bioavailability.”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.1.2. Reports of organisms exposed to MPs in field and laboratory conditions
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Nizzetto et al. (2016) report densities of 1040-1090 kg m -3 for PS and 910-940 kg m -3 for PE.”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.1.1. Types of MPs and target groups reported in field and laboratory studies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Nizzetto et al., 2016
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The density of PS MPs is usually greater than PE MPs, so they may be available not only in the water column, but also in the sediment (Browne et al., 2007), representing a higher risk for both pelagic and demersal organisms”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.1.1. Types of MPs and target groups reported in field and laboratory studies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Browne et al., 2007 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“while PE MPs have a lower density presenting a higher availability in the water column and potentially pose a higher risk for pelagic fish (Phuong et al., 2016).”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.1.1. Types of MPs and target groups reported in field and laboratory studies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Phuong et al., 2016 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This may reflect the difficulty in sampling smaller particles from environmental media as the size of MPs in biological samples collected in the environment may be biased by sampling and detection methodology that seem to contribute to the scarcity of reports of MP with a size b 50 μm.”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.1.2. Reports of organisms exposed to MPs in field and laboratory conditions
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such differences may be the result of difficulties in maintaining and handling large and/or long-lived organisms under controlled conditions.”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.1.2. Reports of organisms exposed to MPs in field and laboratory conditions
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the properties of the MP parent material are likely to influence both its physical behaviour in the environment (e.g.presence in the water column or in sediments), the potential to adsorb environmental contaminants, and its bioavailability”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.1.2. Reports of organisms exposed to MPs in field and laboratory conditions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Andrady and Neal, 2009
- Not checked yetcites Zarfl and Matthies, 2010
- Not checked yetcites Antunes et al., 2013 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, they may encounter more highly contaminated sediments, increasing the likelihood of synergistic effects of MPs with other environmental pollutants.”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.2.1. Organism groups used in ecotoxicological studies with MPs
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Cole et al. (2013) reported that dead copepods can have adhered PS fragments, which could contribute to the vertical transport of this type of MP.”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.1.1. Types of MPs and target groups reported in field and laboratory studies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cole et al., 2013 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“considering that it is one of the most produced and demanded types of plastic, with about 20% of European production, much more than the 7% of production devoted to PS (Plastics Europe, 2017).”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.1.2. Reports of organisms exposed to MPs in field and laboratory conditions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Plastics Europe, 2017
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This detection frequency largely reflects rates of plastic production, except that PS plastics are produced in greater amounts than either PES or PA.”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.1.2. Reports of organisms exposed to MPs in field and laboratory conditions
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Studies of small crustaceans include those by Cole et al. (2015) and Lee et al. (2013) who observed a decrease in survival and fecundity of the marine copepods Calanus helgolandicus (24 h and 216 h; 20 μm; 6.5-7.5 × 10 4 particles L -1 )”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.2.2. Ecotoxicological effects of MPs on aquatic organisms
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cole et al., 2015 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Fish are generally intermediate/top predators (Oliveira et al., 2012(Oliveira et al., , 2013;;Pochberger et al., 2014;de Sá et al., 2015) and may ingest MPs either directly or through consumption of prey containing MPs.”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.2.2. Ecotoxicological effects of MPs on aquatic organisms
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“without affecting its survival (Kaposi et al., 2014).”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.2.2. Ecotoxicological effects of MPs on aquatic organisms
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kaposi et al., 2014 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given the differences in habits and physiology of marine and freshwater species, it is not clear to what extent results based on studies of marine organisms can be applied to freshwater species and vice versa.”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.2.1. Organism groups used in ecotoxicological studies with MPs
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“They reported a LC 50 = 7.14 × 10 4 particles L -1 for PP MPs compared to LC 50 = 4.64 × 10 7 particles L -1 for PE MPs.”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.2.2. Ecotoxicological effects of MPs on aquatic organisms
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Au et al., 2015
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Small crustaceans are often primary consumers (Desforges et al., 2014), as are planktonic rotifers.”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.2.2. Ecotoxicological effects of MPs on aquatic organisms
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Desforges et al., 2014 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Mazurais et al. (2015) reported mortality and induction of the cytochrome P450 (CYP P450) in D. labrax (846 h; 10-45 μm; 10-100 particles mg -1 of diet).”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.2.2. Ecotoxicological effects of MPs on aquatic organisms
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mazurais et al., 2015 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Jaikumar et al. (2018) showed that three Daphnia species showed different responses to primary and secondary MP exposure, and different interactive effects of MP exposure and thermal stress.”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.2.1. Organism groups used in ecotoxicological studies with MPs
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jaikumar et al., 2018 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The number of studies of D. magna may reflect its widespread use in ecotoxicology laboratories.”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.2.1. Organism groups used in ecotoxicological studies with MPs
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, there are likely to be significant analytical challenges associated with conducting such studies.”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.2.3. Interactive ecotoxicological effects of MPs with other contaminants
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“and Tigriopus japonicas (two generation test; 0.05-0.5 μm; 0.125-25 mg L -1 ) when exposed to PS MPs.”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.2.2. Ecotoxicological effects of MPs on aquatic organisms
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lee et al., 2013 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A study using Scrobicularia plana (Ribeiro et al., 2017) reported increases in neurotoxicity and genotoxicity.”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.2.2. Ecotoxicological effects of MPs on aquatic organisms
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ribeiro et al., 2017 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Della Torre et al. (2014) described effects of PS MPs (6-48 h; 0.04-0.05μm; 1-50 mg L -1 ) on gene expression in the echinoderm Paracentrotus lividus, including an up-regulation of the Abcb1 gene responsible for protection and multi-drug resistance (Shipp and Hamdoun, 2012).”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.2.2. Ecotoxicological effects of MPs on aquatic organisms
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Della Torre et al., 2014 source
- Not checked yetcites Shipp and Hamdoun, 2012
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This persistence of MPs in mussel tissues represents a possible source of toxicity to their predators and potentially to humans (e.g.De Witte et al., 2014;Van Cauwenberghe and Janssen, 2014)”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.2.2. Ecotoxicological effects of MPs on aquatic organisms
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites De Witte et al., 2014 source
- Not checked yetcites Van Cauwenberghe and Janssen, 2014
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Hurley et al. (2018) report maximum sediment concentrations of ~440,000 particles m -2 , and an average of 16,000 particles m -2 .”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.2.2. Ecotoxicological effects of MPs on aquatic organisms
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hurley et al., 2018 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“and Paracyclopina nana (24 h; 0.05-6 μm; 0.1-20 mg L -1 ).”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.2.2. Ecotoxicological effects of MPs on aquatic organisms
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jeong et al., 2017
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is also undeniable that a large number of organisms are exposed to these particles and that this exposure may cause a variety of effects and threaten individuals of many different species, the ecosystems they live in and, ultimately, humans.”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 4. Conclusions and future perspectives
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Polyethylene and PS MPs are clearly the most studied type of polymers, although others, specifically PP, PES and PA, may represent a similar danger for aquatic life.”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 4. Conclusions and future perspectives
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While it is difficult to demonstrate, it is possible that this lack of studies in the literature reflects a bias against publishing negative results.”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.2.3. Interactive ecotoxicological effects of MPs with other contaminants
hedgedconditionalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
The set of surveyed publications is representative of the available literature on MPs and aquatic organisms.
“The surveyed publications identified an equivalent number of studies conducted in the field (48%) and laboratory (52%) (Fig. 3A).”
The paper relies on this without support.
Molluscs include a large number of filter feeding species, with a high tendency for bioaccumulation.
“Molluscs include a large number of filter feeding species, with a high tendency for bioaccumulation.”
The paper relies on this without support.
These organism groups occupy a number of positions in aquatic food webs.
“These organism groups occupy a number of positions in aquatic food webs.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In the environment, organisms are simultaneously exposed to several contaminants.
“These studies are motivated by the situation found in the environment where organisms are simultaneously exposed to several contaminants.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Several of these organisms are widely used for food (e.g. M. edulis).
“Considering that several of these organisms are widely used for food (e.g.M. edulis)”
The paper relies on this without support.
There are many freshwater organisms with considerable trophic and commercial importance.
“Considering that there are many freshwater organisms with considerable trophic and commercial importance, this approach should be one of the directions that the study of MPs should take.”
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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“As reported by de Sá et al. [75], MPs can act as a carrier of pollutants in the marine food web.”
From Is Wild Marine Biota Affected by Microplastics? (2022) · cites this paper as [75]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“Polyethylene was the most common type of MP studied in fish, it was reported in 34 studies, or 12% of the total number of studies identified.”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.1.1. Types of MPs and target groups reported in field and laboratory studies
Reported 12 · recomputed 5.555556
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 3.2.3. Interactive ecotoxicological effects of MPs with other contaminants
“Slightly more than half the studies (54%) were conducted using PE MPs.Polystyrene (29%), PVC (19%) and PP (4%) MPs were also reported.”
§ Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? > 2. Methodological approach
“A study was defined as a series of observations of one group of organisms, type of MPs, shape and/or size.Any article reporting data on more than one of the aforementioned categories generated a number of studies equal to the number of elements per premise.”
Citations
Cites
Microplastics in the marine environment
Andrady, A. L. (2011) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.05.030 · Cited by 8,105
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
The Physical Impacts of Microplastics on Marine Organisms: A Review
Wright, S. L., Thompson, R. C., & Galloway, T. S. (2013) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2013.02.031 · Cited by 4,524
Horton, A. A., Walton, A., Spurgeon, D. J., Lahive, E., & Svendsen, C. (2017) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.190 · Cited by 3,756
Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., & Klages, M. (2015) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-16510-3 · Cited by 3,513
Plastics, the environment and human health: current consensus and future trends
Thompson, R. C., Moore, C. J., Saal, F. S. V., & Swan, S. H. (2009) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0053 · Cited by 3,069
Microplastic ingestion by zooplankton
Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Fileman, E., Halsband, C., Goodhead, R., Moger, J., & Galloway, T. S. (2013) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es400663f · Cited by 2,763
Auta, H. S., Emenike, C. U., & Fauziah, S. H. (2017) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2017.02.013 · Cited by 2,649
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 301–400 of 1,001
Villegas, L., Cabrera, M., & Capparelli, M. V. (2021) · Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology · doi:10.1007/s00128-021-03238-z · Cited by 79
Rana, A. K., Thakur, M. K., Saini, A. K., Mokhta, S. K., Moradi, O., Rydzkowski, T., Alsanie, W. F., Wang, Q., Grammatikos, S., & Thakur, V. K. (2022) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154056 · Cited by 85
Li, Q., Lai, Y., Li, P., Liu, X., Yao, Z., Liu, J., & Yu, S. (2022) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.2c02033 · Cited by 80
Jiang, P., Yuan, G., Jiang, B., Zhang, J., Wang, Y., Lv, H.-J., Zhang, Z., Wu, J.-L., Wu, Q., & Li, L. (2021) · Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety · doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2021.112345 · Cited by 81
Innovations in analytical methods to assess the occurrence of microplastics in soil
Perez, C. N., Carré, F., Belkhiri, A. H., Joris, A., Leonards, P. E. G., & Lamoree, M. H. (2022) · Journal of environmental chemical engineering · doi:10.1016/j.jece.2022.107421 · Cited by 80
Huang, X., Leung, J. Y. S., Hu, M., Xu, E. G., & Wang, Y. (2022) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119701 · Cited by 78
Size-dependent seizurogenic effect of polystyrene microplastics in zebrafish embryos
Jeong, S., Jang, S., Kim, S. S., Bae, M. A., Shin, J., Lee, K.-B., & Kim, K. (2022) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.129616 · Cited by 79
Rapid and efficient removal of organic matter from sewage sludge for extraction of microplastics
Maw, M. M., Boontanon, N., Fujii, S., & Boontanon, S. K. (2022) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158642 · Cited by 78
Using Boops boops (osteichthyes) to assess microplastic ingestion in the Mediterranean Sea
Tsangaris, C., Δίγκα, Ν., Valente, T., Aguilar, Á., Borrell, A., de Lucia, G. A., Gambaiani, D., Garcia‐Garin, O., Kaberi, H., Martin, J., et al. (2020) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111397 · Cited by 76
Galafassi, S., Campanale, C., Massarelli, C., Uricchio, V. F., & Volta, P. (2021) · Water · doi:10.3390/w13162214 · Cited by 77
“Seawater has received much more attention than freshwater [6,7] and other environmental compartments such as air and soil [8].”
BackgroundFélix, L. M., Carreira, P., & Peixoto, F. (2022) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.136895 · Cited by 77
Ali, S. S., Alsharbaty, M. H. M., Al-Tohamy, R., Schagerl, M., Al-Zahrani, M., Kornaros, M. E., & Sun, J. (2024) · Environmental Chemistry and Ecotoxicology · doi:10.1016/j.enceco.2024.12.005 · Cited by 83
First evidence of microplastic pollution in the El Quetzalito sand beach of the Guatemalan Caribbean
Mazariegos-Ortíz, C., Rosales, M. D. L. Á., Carrillo-Ovalle, L., Cardoso, R. P., Muniz, M. C., & dos Anjos, R. M. (2020) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111220 · Cited by 76
Assessing urban microplastic pollution in a benthic habitat of Patagonia Argentina
Ríos, M. F., Hernández-Moresino, R. D., & Galván, D. E. (2020) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111491 · Cited by 78
Choi, Y. J., Park, J. W., Lim, Y., Seo, S., & Hwang, D. Y. (2021) · Nanotoxicology · doi:10.1080/17435390.2021.1996650 · Cited by 76
“…hepatocellular ballooning, and fibrosis in liver, as well as increases of red blood cells in the glomerulus and tubule luminal diameter in the kidney, are detected on the histological structure analysis (Sheth et al. 1998; Falconer et al. 1999; Horiguchi et al. 2001; Kleiner et al. 2005).”
BackgroundKokalj, A. J., Dolar, A., Drobne, D., Marinšek, M., Dolenec, M., Škrlep, L., Strmljan, G., Mušič, B., & Škapin, A. S. (2022) · Microplastics and Nanoplastics · doi:10.1186/s43591-021-00020-0 · Cited by 76
“[33] dealing with microplastics from fishing ropes which were not identified during our”
BackgroundSong, Y., Zhang, B., Si, M., Chen, Z., Geng, J., Liang, F., Xi, M., Liu, X., & Wang, R. (2022) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.137225 · Cited by 76
A Review of the Migration and Transformation of Microplastics in Inland Water Systems
Cai, Y., Li, C., & Zhao, Y. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph19010148 · Cited by 85
“Meanwhile, mismanaged waste plastics exposed in the environment can be decomposed to smaller sizes by solar ultraviolet radiation, weathering, mechanical abrasion and biodegradation [28].”
BackgroundAcute toxicity of microplastic fibers to honeybees and effects on foraging behavior
Buteler, M., Alma, A. M., Stadler, T., Gingold, A. C., Manattini, M. C., & Lozada, M. (2022) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153320 · Cited by 79
Mohsen, M., Zhang, L., Sun, L., Lin, C., Wang, Q., & Yang, H. (2019) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113606 · Cited by 75
Khosrovyan, A., Gabrielyan, B. K., & Kahru, A. (2020) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127456 · Cited by 74
Okeke, E. S., Olagbaju, O. A., Okoye, C. O., Addey, C. I., Chukwudozie, K. I., Okoro, J. O., Deme, G. G., Ewusi-Mensah, D., Igun, E., Ejeromedoghene, O., et al. (2022) · Chemical Engineering Journal Advances · doi:10.1016/j.ceja.2022.100402 · Cited by 81
Kim, Y., Jeong, J., Lee, S., Choi, I., & Choi, J. (2019) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121725 · Cited by 72
Yuan, F., Zhao, H., Sun, H., Zhao, J., & Sun, Y. (2020) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-020-11411-w · Cited by 72
Silva, C. J. M., Silva, A. L. P., Campos, D., Soares, A. M. V. M., Pestana, J. L. T., & Gravato, C. (2020) · Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety · doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.111375 · Cited by 72
A Meta-analysis of Ecotoxicological Hazard Data for Nanoplastics in Marine and Freshwater Systems
Yang, T., & Nowack, B. (2020) · Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry · doi:10.1002/etc.4887 · Cited by 71
“Moreover, most laboratory studies were conducted at unrealistically high micro‐/nanoplastic concentrations, and fish and small crustaceans are over‐ represented in those effect studies (de Sá et al. 2018).”
BackgroundLee, D., Nam, H., Wang, S., Kim, H., Kim, J. H., Won, Y., Hwang, B. W., Kim, Y. D., Nam, H., Lee, K.-H., et al. (2021) · Waste Management · doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2021.03.020 · Cited by 71
Physiological and biochemical responses to caffeine and microplastics in Mytilus galloprovincialis
Impellitteri, F., Yunko, K., Martyniuk, V., Matskiv, T., Lechachenko, S. A., Khoma, V., Mudra, A., Piccione, G. G., Stoliar, O. B., & Faggio, C. (2023) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.164075 · Cited by 74
Karaoğlu, K., & Gül, S. (2020) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.126915 · Cited by 71
Kutralam-Muniasamy, G., Pérez‐Guevara, F., Elizalde, I., & Shruti, V. C. (2020) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139991 · Cited by 70
Atamanalp, M., Köktürk, M., Parlak, V., Uçar, A., Arslan, G., & Alak, G. (2021) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-021-16243-w · Cited by 77
“The previous studies had reported that polyethylene is the most common type of MPs studied in fish, and the density of these polymers may vary (de Sá et al. 2018).”
BackgroundMasiá, P., Ardura, A., & García‐Vázquez, E. (2022) · Food Research International · doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2022.110973 · Cited by 70
Rose, P. K., Jain, M., Kataria, N., Sahoo, P. K., Garg, V. K., & Yadav, A. (2023) · Groundwater for Sustainable Development · doi:10.1016/j.gsd.2022.100889 · Cited by 73
Jeyavani, J., Sibiya, A., Thambusamy, S., Ganesan, V., Al‐Ghanim, K. A., Riaz, M. N., Govindarajan, M., & Vaseeharan, B. (2023) · Toxics · doi:10.3390/toxics11030282 · Cited by 78
Ma, Y., Xie, Z.-Y., Hamid, N., Tang, Q.-P., Deng, J.-Y., Luo, L., & Pei, D. (2023) · Aquatic Toxicology · doi:10.1016/j.aquatox.2023.106597 · Cited by 73
Nugnes, R., Russo, C., Lavorgna, M., Orlo, E., Kundi, M., & Isidori, M. (2022) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2022.120088 · Cited by 70
Cuthbert, R. N., Al-Jaibachi, R., Dalu, T., Dick, J. T. A., & Callaghan, A. (2018) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.108 · Cited by 68
Rubin, A. E., Sarkar, A. K., & Zucker, I. (2021) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147670 · Cited by 67
Soursou, V., Campo, J., & Picó, Y. (2023) · Trends in Environmental Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.teac.2023.e00195 · Cited by 68
Uddin, S., Fowler, S. W., Saeed, T., Naji, A., & Al-Jandal, N. J. (2020) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111374 · Cited by 67
Chanpiwat, P., & Damrongsiri, S. (2021) · Environmental Monitoring and Assessment · doi:10.1007/s10661-021-09012-2 · Cited by 71
“The negative impacts of microplastics on both marine and freshwater organisms (de Sa et al., 2018; Devriese et al., 2017; Eerkes-Medrano et al., 2015; Foley et al., 2018; Ma et al., 2019a; Wang et al., 2019) have recently caused awareness of microplastic pollution Supplementary information…”
BackgroundBanerjee, A., & Shelver, W. L. (2021) · Journal of Food Protection · doi:10.4315/jfp-21-117 · Cited by 70
Face Masks - Protecting the Wearer But Neglecting the Aquatic Environment?
Hasan, N. A., Heal, R., Bashar, A., & Haque, M. M. (2020) · Environmental Challenges · doi:10.1016/j.envc.2021.100126 · Cited by 72
Exposure to polystyrene microplastics reduces regeneration and growth in planarians
Gao, T., Sun, B., Xu, Z., Chen, Q., Yang, M., Wan, Q.-L., Lin-xia, S., Chen, G., Jing, C., Zeng, E. Y., et al. (2022) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.128673 · Cited by 67
Shrimp and microplastics: A case study with the Atlantic ditch shrimp Palaemon varians
Saborowski, R., Korez, Š., Riesbeck, S., Weidung, M., Bickmeyer, U., & Gutow, L. (2022) · Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety · doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2022.113394 · Cited by 70
Dose-Dependent Cytotoxicity of Polypropylene Microplastics (PP-MPs) in Two Freshwater Fishes
Bobori, D., Feidantsis, K. G., Dimitriadi, A., Datsi, N., Ripis, P., Kalogiannis, S., Sampsonidis, I., Kastrinaki, G., Ainali, N. M., Lambropoulou, D. A., et al. (2022) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms232213878 · Cited by 72
“Alterations in these two characteristics may cause the different dispersion of the MPs in several parts of the aquatic environment, thus affecting their availability to organisms of the several trophic levels [28].”
BackgroundRajan, K., Khudsar, F. A., & Kumar, R. (2023) · Journal of Hazardous Materials Advances · doi:10.1016/j.hazadv.2023.100342 · Cited by 71
Microplastics in wastewaters and their potential effects on aquatic and terrestrial biota
Qaiser, Z., Aqeel, M. A., Sarfraz, W., Rizvi, Z. F., Noman, A., Naeem, S., & Khalid, N. (2023) · Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.cscee.2023.100536 · Cited by 72
Microplastics disrupt hermit crab shell selection
Crump, A., Mullens, C., Bethell, E., Cunningham, E. M., & Arnott, G. (2020) · Biology Letters · doi:10.1098/rsbl.2020.0030 · Cited by 75
“While fibres and fragments are more abundant in field observations [14,28], we used spheres, because they have more negative impacts on marine life [13].”
BackgroundGallitelli, L., Cesarini, G., Cera, A., Sighicelli, M., Lecce, F., Menegoni, P., & Scalici, M. (2020) · Hydrology · doi:10.3390/hydrology7040090 · Cited by 67
“Plastic is a growing concern as it contaminates aquatic ecosystems due to human activities, such as improper waste management and accidental loss, causing several negative effects on biota [1,2].”
BackgroundHamm, T., & Lenz, M. (2021) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146088 · Cited by 67
Jeyavani, J., Sibiya, A., Gopi, N., Mahboob, S., Riaz, M. N., & Vaseeharan, B. (2022) · Environmental Research · doi:10.1016/j.envres.2022.113370 · Cited by 65
Chang, D. Y., Jeong, S., Shin, J., Park, J., Park, C., Choi, S., Chun, C.-H., Chae, M.-Y., & Lim, B. C. (2023) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2023.121481 · Cited by 68
Santos, A. L., Rodrigues, L. C., Rodrigues, C. C., Cirqueira, F., Malafaia, G., & Rocha, T. L. (2023) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.132880 · Cited by 68
Self-citationThe sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus as a bioeroder of plastic
Porter, A., Smith, K. E., & Lewis, C. N. (2019) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133621 · Cited by 69
Ockenden, A., Tremblay, L. A., Dikareva, N., & Simon, K. S. (2021) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148507 · Cited by 65
Accumulation and effects of microplastic fibers in American lobster larvae (Homarus americanus)
Woods, M. N., Hong, T. J., Baughman, D., Andrews, G., Fields, D. M., & Matrai, P. A. (2020) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111280 · Cited by 69
Ahamed, A., Veksha, A., Giannis, A., & Lisak, G. (2021) · Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.coche.2021.100684 · Cited by 67
Araújo, A. P. D. C., Rocha, T. L., Silva, D. D. M. E., & Malafaia, G. (2021) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.131090 · Cited by 63
Self-citationWu, D., Liu, Z., Cai, M., Jiao, Y., Li, Y., Chen, Q., & Zhao, Y. (2019) · Aquatic Toxicology · doi:10.1016/j.aquatox.2019.105350 · Cited by 65
Nano/micro plastics – Challenges on quantification and remediation: A review
Enfrin, M., Hachemi, C., Hodgson, P. D., Jegatheesan, V., Vrouwenvelder, J. S., Callahan, D. L., Lee, J., & Dumée, L. F. (2021) · Journal of Water Process Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.jwpe.2021.102128 · Cited by 70
Closing the Gap between Bio-Based and Petroleum-Based Plastic through Bioengineering
Al-Khairy, D., Fu, W., Alzahmi, A. S., Twizere, J., Amin, S. A., Salehi‐Ashtiani, K., & Mystikou, A. (2022) · Microorganisms · doi:10.3390/microorganisms10122320 · Cited by 65
“When a living organism accumulates microplastic in its body, these chemical pollutants, in combination with other free-floating pollutants, can cause reproductive impairment, neurotoxicity, and oxidative stress [13], having a greater effect in larger predators due to food web biomagnification [14,15].”
Peng, S., Chen, X., Rong, X., Ma, H., Zhao, C., & Pang, K. (2023) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136708 · Cited by 64
Fred-Ahmadu, O. H., Ahmadu, F. O., Adedapo, A. E., Oghenovo, I., Ogunmodede, O. T., & Benson, N. U. (2024) · Environmental Sciences Europe · doi:10.1186/s12302-024-00995-6 · Cited by 71
“MPs may also adhere directly to the bodies of fish [19, 124].”
BackgroundMarine plastics: What risks and policies exist for seagrass ecosystems in the Plasticene?
Bonanno, G., & Orlando‐Bonaca, M. (2020) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111425 · Cited by 66
Mai, Y., Peng, S., Lai, Z., & Wang, X. (2021) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-021-14395-3 · Cited by 62
“…conducted on the potential ecological risks posed by microplastics have mainly focused on their impacts on aquatic organisms (Chan et al. 2019; de Sa et al. 2018; Qiao et al. 2019) or their function as carriers of other pollutants (Jia et al. 2020; Kalcikova et al. 2020; Leiser et al. 2020),…”
Crooks, N., Parker, H., & Pernetta, A. P. (2019) · Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology · doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2019.151187 · Cited by 65
Bonfanti, P., Colombo, A., Saibene, M., Motta, G., Saliu, F., Catelani, T., Méhn, D., Spina, R. L., Ponti, J., Cella, C., et al. (2021) · Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety · doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2021.112775 · Cited by 68
Investigation of microplastics release behavior from ozone-exposed plastic pipe materials
Zhang, X., Lin, T., & Wang, X. (2021) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2021.118758 · Cited by 61
Microplastics profile in constructed wetlands: Distribution, retention and implications
Lu, H.-C., Ziajahromi, S., Locke, A. J., Neale, P. A., & Leusch, F. D. L. (2022) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2022.120079 · Cited by 66
Identification, characterisation of microplastic and their effects on aquatic organisms
Alak, G., Uçar, A., Parlak, V., & Atamanalp, M. (2022) · Chemistry and Ecology · doi:10.1080/02757540.2022.2126461 · Cited by 65
“of larger plastic particles that already exist in the ecological environment [12].”
BackgroundRuíz‐Palacios, M., Almeida, M., Martins, M. A., Oliveira, M., Esteban, M. Á., & Cuesta, A. (2019) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134821 · Cited by 62
Self-citationThe current state of microplastic pollution in the world's largest gulf and its future directions
Shruti, V. C., Pérez‐Guevara, F., & Kutralam-Muniasamy, G. (2021) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2021.118142 · Cited by 63
Valencia-Castañeda, G., Ruíz-Fernández, A. C., Frías-Espericueta, M. G., Rivera-Hernández, J. R., Green-Ruiz, C. R., & Páez‐Osuna, F. (2022) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.134194 · Cited by 61
Manuel, P., Almeida, M., Martins, M. A., & Oliveira, M. (2022) · Environmental Research · doi:10.1016/j.envres.2022.113584 · Cited by 61
Self-citationDeng, Y., Chen, H., Huang, Y., Wang, Q., Chen, W., & Chen, D. (2022) · Environmental Science & Technology Letters · doi:10.1021/acs.estlett.2c00262 · Cited by 61
Sustainable coagulative removal of microplastic from aquatic systems: recent progress and outlook
Badawi, A. K., Hassan, R., & Ismail, B. (2025) · RSC Advances · doi:10.1039/d5ra04074d · Cited by 61
Ghayebzadeh, M., Taghipour, H., & Aslani, H. (2020) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138942 · Cited by 61
McGoran, A. R., Clark, P. F., Smith, B. D., & Morritt, D. (2020) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114972 · Cited by 61
Jessieleena, A. A., Rathinavelu, S., Velmaiel, K. E., John, A. A., & Nambi, I. M. (2023) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-023-26918-1 · Cited by 61
“With respect to the constituents of municipal wastewater, some of the common household activities that generate municipal wastewater include vessel washing, laundry washing, bathing, and toilet usage (Delhiraja and Philip 2020).”
BackgroundMurugan, P., Sivaperumal, P., Balu, S., Arya, S. K., Atchudan, R., & Sundramoorthy, A. K. (2023) · RSC Advances · doi:10.1039/d3ra05420a · Cited by 66
Aydın, İ., Terzi̇, Y., Gündoğdu, S., Aytan, Ü., Öztürk, R. Ç., Atamanalp, M., Alak, G., Sivri, N., Akarsu, C., ATICI, A. A., et al. (2023) · Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · doi:10.4194/trjfas24773 · Cited by 67
“Secondary microplastics consist of the gradual fragmentation or degradation of larger plastics (Figure 1) already present in the environment (Carlos de Sá et al., 2018).”
BackgroundMut, N. N. N., Na, J., & Jung, J. (2024) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2024.123399 · Cited by 62
Peez, N., & Imhof, W. (2020) · The Analyst · doi:10.1039/d0an00879f · Cited by 58
Angelucci, D. M., & Tomei, M. C. (2020) · Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology · doi:10.1080/10643389.2020.1856594 · Cited by 61
“2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC and as contaminant vectors (De Sa et al., 2018; Teuten et al., 2009; Worm et al., 2017; Xu et al., 2020).”
BackgroundLi, W., Pan, Z., Xu, J., Liu, Q., Zou, Q., Lin, H., Wu, L., & Huang, H. (2021) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151126 · Cited by 63
Rangasamy, B., Malafaia, G., & Maheswaran, R. (2021) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.127789 · Cited by 61
Microbiome: A forgotten target of environmental micro(nano)plastics?
Santos, A. L., Rodrigues, C. C., Oliveira, M., & Rocha, T. L. (2022) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153628 · Cited by 61
Self-citationDellisanti, W., Leung, M. M.-L., Lam, K. W.-K., Wang, Y., Hu, M., Lo, H., & Fang, J. K. (2022) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.114221 · Cited by 63
A nationwide assessment of litter on China’s beaches using citizen science data
Chen, H., Wang, S., Guo, H., Lin, H., & Zhang, Y. (2019) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113756 · Cited by 61
Impact of face mask microplastics pollution on the aquatic environment and aquaculture organisms
Jimoh, J. O., Rahmah, S., Mazelan, S., Jalilah, M., Olasunkanmi, J. B., Lim, L., Ghaffar, M. A., Chang, Y., Bhubalan, K., & Liew, H. J. (2022) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2022.120769 · Cited by 58
Zhang, H., Shen, N., Li, Y., Hu, C., & Yuan, P. (2023) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-023-30869-y · Cited by 58
“In addition, the most tested plastic polymers in the experiments have typically been PE and PS, which are among the most common polymers in the environment (De Sá et al. 2018).”
Maw, M. M., Boontanon, N., Aung, H. K. Z. Z., Jindal, R., Fujii, S., Visvanathan, C., & Boontanon, S. K. (2024) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2024.142536 · Cited by 58
Soltanighias, T., Umar, A. Y., Abdullahi, M., Abdallah, M. A., & Orsini, L. (2024) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2024.125133 · Cited by 64
Khosrovyan, A., & Kahru, A. (2019) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.125487 · Cited by 58
Franzellitti, S., Capolupo, M., Wathsala, R. H. G. R., Valbonesi, P., & Fabbri, E. (2019) · Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part C Toxicology & Pharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.cbpc.2019.02.005 · Cited by 56
Vélez‐Escamilla, L. Y., & Contreras‐Torres, F. F. (2022) · Particle & Particle Systems Characterization · doi:10.1002/ppsc.202100217 · Cited by 57
Ecotoxicity of micro- and nanoplastics on aquatic algae: Facts, challenges, and future opportunities
Nguyen, M., Lin, C., Nguyen, H.-L., Le, V.-G., Haddout, S., Um, M.-J., Chang, S. W., & Nguyen, D. D. (2023) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118982 · Cited by 59
Do foodborne polyethylene microparticles affect the health of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)?
Hodkovicová, N., Hollerová, A., Čaloudová, H., Blahová, J., Franc, A., Garajova, M., Lenz, J., Tichý, F., Faldyna, M., Kulich, P., et al. (2021) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148490 · Cited by 60
Kolenda, K., Kuśmierek, N., & Pstrowska, K. (2020) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-020-09648-6 · Cited by 56
“In recent years, marine environments have been well studied regarding microplastic (MP) pollution; however, the knowledge about freshwater biota affected by MPs remains insufficient (de Sá et al. 2018; Lambert and Wagner 2018).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- de Sá, L. C., Oliveira, M., Ribeiro, F., Rocha, T. L., & Futter, M. N.
- Affiliations
- Centro de Estudos do Ambiente e do Mar (PT)
- The University of Queensland (AU)
- Universidade Federal de Goiás (BR)
- Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Futter, Martyn Norman
- Venue
- Science of The Total Environment
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-12
- Volume
- 645
- Pages
- 1029-1039
- ISSN
- 0048-9697 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2883238699
- Semantic Scholar
- b9222c4f4ecd7e923efa6319e707a47b84633bce
- Cited by
- 1,316
- References
- 140
- Citations by year
- 2026: 80 · 2025: 150 · 2024: 179 · 2023: 189 · 2022: 214 · 2021: 207 · 2020: 205 · 2019: 82 · 2018: 9
- FWCI
- 6.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- The Science of The Total Environment (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Swedish Research Council FORMAS (2017-00029)
- 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, aquatic organisms, microplastic ingestion, ecotoxicology, polymer types, particle size and shape, microfibers, microplastic fragments, fish, invertebrates, mechanism of action, environmental exposure
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Environmental Monitoring, Plastics, Water Pollutants, Chemical, Ecotoxicology, Aquatic Organisms
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
