Cited by 823Microplastics and Plastic PollutionEnvironmental Toxicology and EcotoxicologyPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts

Brain damage and behavioural disorders in fish induced by plastic nanoparticles delivered through the food chain

Open access
Mattsson, Karin, Johnson, Elyse V., Malmendal, Anders, Linse, Sara, Hansson, Lars-Anders, Cedervall, Tommy·2017·Scientific Reports

Abstract

The tremendous increases in production of plastic materials has led to an accumulation of plastic pollution worldwide. Many studies have addressed the physical effects of large-sized plastics on organisms, whereas few have focused on plastic nanoparticles, despite their distinct chemical, physical and mechanical properties. Hence our understanding of their effects on ecosystem function, behaviour and metabolism of organisms remains elusive. Here we demonstrate that plastic nanoparticles reduce survival of aquatic zooplankton and penetrate the blood-to-brain barrier in fish and cause behavioural disorders. Hence, for the first time, we uncover direct interactions between plastic nanoparticles and brain tissue, which is the likely mechanism behind the observed behavioural disorders in the top consumer. In a broader perspective, our findings demonstrate that plastic nanoparticles are transferred up through a food chain, enter the brain of the top consumer and affect its behaviour, thereby severely disrupting the function of natural ecosystems.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-017-10813-0

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Nanoplastics likely have adverse effects on aquatic organisms.

    “They likely have adverse effects on aquatic organisms (Mattsson et al., 2017;Jeong et al., 2018;Baudrimont et al., 2020;Wayman and Niemann, 2021)”

    From Plastic photodegradation under simulated marine conditions (2023) · cites this paper as Mattsson et al., 2017

  • Daphnia magna exposed to nanoplastics showed increased toxicity, physical damage and higher mortality rates as a function of nanoplastic exposure.

    “The results of the studies have shown an increased toxicity, physical damage and higher mortality rates of Daphnia as a function of nanoplastic exposure.”
  • Experimental studies suggest that the effects of nanoplastics are more negative compared to macro/micro plastic counterparts, at least under tested exposure conditions, which might be higher than environmental levels.

    “Nanoplastics might simply pass through organisms without further interactions but experimental studies rather suggest that the effects of nanoplastics are more negative when compared to their macro/micro plastic counterparts, at least under the tested exposure conditions, 16,147 which might be higher than environmental levels.”
  • At least for fish, nanoplastics can cross the blood brain barrier, accumulate in several vital organs, and disrupt metabolism and hormonal signalling.

    “Noteworthy is that at least for sh, nanoplastics can cross the blood brain barrier, 16 accumulate in several vital organs, 158,159 and disrupt metabolism and hormonal signalling.158”
  • The fitness of Daphnia magna was impaired by small nanoplastic particles of ~52 nm but not by larger ones of >120 nm, and depuration of 24 nm particles was faster than that of 250 nm particles.

    “The tness of Daphnia magna was impaired by small nanoplastic particles of $52 nm but not by larger ones of >120 nm, 16 and the depuration of 24 nm particles was faster than that of 250 nm particles.156”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mattsson, K., Johnson, E. V., Malmendal, A., Linse, S., Hansson, L.-A., & Cedervall, T.
Affiliations
Lund University (SE)
Corresponding author
Mattsson, Karin
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2017-09-13
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
11452-11452
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2752608807
Cited by
823
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 71 · 2025: 98 · 2024: 128 · 2023: 141 · 2022: 113 · 2021: 103 · 2020: 82 · 2019: 58 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 3
FWCI
20.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Lunds Universitet
  • Vetenskapsrådet
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
nanoplastics, microplastics, fish behavior, brain damage, blood-brain barrier, zooplankton survival, trophic transfer, neurotoxicity, plastic pollution, aquatic ecosystems
MeSH terms
Animals, Brain Injuries, Environmental Pollution, Fish Diseases, Mortality, Plastics, Water Pollutants, Chemical, Food Chain, Nanoparticles

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