Cited by 286Microplastics and Plastic PollutionPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental ImpactsEnvironmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology

Ingestion of Microplastics by Freshwater Tubifex Worms

Open access
Hurley, Rachel R., Woodward, Jamie C., Rothwell, James J.·2017·Environmental Science & Technology

Abstract

Microplastic contamination of the aquatic environment is a global issue. Microplastics can be ingested by organisms leading to negative physiological impacts. The ingestion of microplastics by freshwater invertebrates has not been reported outside the laboratory. Here we demonstrate the ingestion of microplastic particles by Tubifex tubifex from bottom sediments in a major urban waterbody fed by the River Irwell, Manchester, UK. The host sediments had microplastic concentrations ranging from 56 to 2543 particles kg –1 . 87% of the Tubifex -ingested microplastic particles were microfibers (55–4100 μm in length), while the remaining 13% were microplastic fragments (50–4500 μm in length). FT-IR analysis revealed ingestion of a range of polymers, including polyester and acrylic fibers. While microbeads were present in the host sediment matrix, they were not detected in Tubifex worm tissue. The mean concentration of ingested microplastics was 129 ± 65.4 particles g –1 tissue. We also show that Tubifex worms retain microplastics for longer than they retain other particulate components of the ingested sediment matrix. Microplastic ingestion by Tubifex worms poses a significant risk for trophic transfer and biomagnification of microplastics up the aquatic food chain.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acs.est.7b03567

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

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

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hurley, R. R., Woodward, J. C., & Rothwell, J. J.
Affiliations
University of Manchester (GB)
Corresponding author
Hurley, Rachel R.
Venue
Environmental Science & Technology
Published
2017-10-25
Volume
51
Issue
21
Pages
12844-12851
ISSN
  • 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5851
OpenAlex
W2761718382
Cited by
286
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 1
FWCI
9.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Environmental Science & Technology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Microplastics and Plastic Pollution
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Pharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Environmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
Keywords
microplastic ingestion, Tubifex tubifex, freshwater invertebrates, microfibers, microplastic fragments, microbeads, sediment contamination, polyester fibers, polyacrylonitrile fibers, microplastic retention, trophic transfer, biomagnification, urban water bodies
MeSH terms
Animals, Environmental Monitoring, Fresh Water, Plastics, Polychaeta, Water Pollutants, Chemical, Spectroscopy, Fourier Transform Infrared

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