Impacts of polystyrene microplastics on Daphnia magna: A laboratory and a mesocosm study
Abstract
Most research into microplastics (MPs) in freshwaters has concentrated on measurements under controlled conditions without any link to the natural environment. Here we studied the effects of a 15 μm polystyrene MP on Daphnia magna survival, growth, and reproduction in the laboratory. We also exposed fifteen 25 L freshwater mesocosms to a high concentration of the same MPs. Five were controls seeded with five species found in all ponds (mosquito, water flea, midge, spire shell and water mite), five identical but treated with 15 μm polystyrene MPs and five seeded with only mosquitoes and water fleas. The laboratory chronic toxicity test for both adults and neonate Daphnia magna revealed that effects were more related to the availability of food rather than the toxicity of MPs. In the mesocosms most of the MPs settled in the sediment after the first week of exposure. After four weeks the D. magna population decreased significantly in the MP mesocosms compared to the control mesocosms, although it subsequently recovered. There was no impact on other organisms added to the mesocosms, other than a difference in timing of lesser water boatman (Corixa punctata) colonisation, which colonised the control mesocosms in week 4 and the treated 4 weeks later. The detrivorous, sediment sifting, mayfly Leptophlebia marginata appeared in mesocosms in the fourth week of sampling and with significantly higher numbers in the MP treated mesocosm. Their activity had no significant impact on MPs in the water column, although numbers did increase above zero. The significant decline of D. magna suggests that their effect in a natural situation is unpredictable where environmental conditions and invertebrate communities may add additional stresses.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Our exposures of 10 and 50 microplastics/L are slightly higher than the average concentration reported in lake water in nature but significantly lower than the majority of published laboratory studies and lower than those used in other mesocosm studies.
“Our exposures of 10 (low treatment) and 50 (high treatment) microplastics/L are slightly higher than the average concentration reported in lake water in nature but significantly lower than the majority of published laboratory studies (Bucci et al., 2020) and lower than those used in other mesocosm studies (Aljaibachi et al., 2020;Marchant et al., 2023;Yıldız et al., 2022).”
From No Effect of Realistic Concentrations of Polyester Microplastic Fibers on Freshwater Zooplankton Communities (2024) · cites this paper as Aljaibachi et al., 2020
Tested microplastic morphologies in micro- and mesocosm studies have been mostly limited to fragments and spheres, with only Rauchschwalbe et al. (2022) including fibrous particles.
“While different polymer types are well represented in micro-and mesocosm studies (Aljaibachi et al., 2020;Rauchschwalbe et al., 2022;Silva et al., 2022;Yıldız et al., 2022), the tested microplastic morphologies have been mostly limited to fragments and spheres, with only Rauchschwalbe et al. (2022) including fibrous particles.”
From No Effect of Realistic Concentrations of Polyester Microplastic Fibers on Freshwater Zooplankton Communities (2024) · cites this paper as Aljaibachi et al., 2020
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 55 · Cited by 84
Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.
- Authors
- Aljaibachi, R., Laird, W. B., Stevens, F., & Callaghan, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Reading (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Callaghan, Amanda
- Venue
- Science of The Total Environment
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-02
- Volume
- 705
- Pages
- 135800
- ISSN
- 0048-9697 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2990390049
- Cited by
- 84
- References
- 55
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 5
- FWCI
- 2.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Science of The Total Environment (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- CentAUR (University of Reading) (acceptedVersion)
- 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
- polystyrene microplastics, Daphnia magna, chronic toxicity, food availability, population decline (ecology), community recovery, water flea
- MeSH terms
- Microplastics, Aging, Animals, Daphnia, Plastics, Polystyrenes, Water Pollutants, Chemical, Ephemeroptera
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review