Cited by 448Microplastics and Plastic PollutionEnvironmental Toxicology and EcotoxicologyPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts

Feeding type and development drive the ingestion of microplastics by freshwater invertebrates

Open access
Scherer, Christian, Brennholt, Nicole, Reifferscheid, Georg, Wagner, Martin·2017·Scientific Reports

Abstract

Abstract Microscopic plastic items (microplastics) are ubiquitously present in aquatic ecosystems. With decreasing size their availability and potential to accumulate throughout food webs increase. However, little is known on the uptake of microplastics by freshwater invertebrates. To address this, we exposed species with different feeding strategies to 1, 10 and 90 µm fluorescent polystyrene spheres (3–3 000 particles mL−1). Additionally, we investigated how developmental stages and a co-exposure to natural particles (e.g., food) modulate microplastic ingestion. All species ingested microplastics in a concentration-dependent manner with Daphnia magna consuming up to 6 180 particles h−1, followed by Chironomus riparius (226 particles h−1), Physella acuta (118 particles h−1), Gammarus pulex (10 particles h−1) and Lumbriculus variegatus (8 particles h−1). D. magna did not ingest 90 µm microplastics whereas the other species preferred larger microplastics over 1 µm in size. In C. riparius and D. magna, size preference depended on the life stage with larger specimens ingesting more and larger microplastics. The presence of natural particles generally reduced the microplastics uptake. Our results demonstrate that freshwater invertebrates have the capacity to ingest microplastics. However, the quantity of uptake depends on their feeding type and morphology as well as on the availability of microplastics.

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/s41598-017-17191-7

Cites

68 of 68 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?

  • Freshwater species take up microplastics from sediments, and the ingestion capacity of freshwater invertebrates varies with feeding type.

    “Previous studies have indeed demonstrated that microplastics are taken up from sediments by freshwater species10−15 and that the capacity of freshwater invertebrates to ingest microplastics depends on their feeding type.15”

    From Microplastic Effect Thresholds for Freshwater Benthic Macroinvertebrates (2018) · cites this paper as [15]

    The Abstract and Results and Discussion (Species; pages not provided) show that freshwater invertebrates ingested microplastics at rates that varied with feeding type. The paper also reports ingestion by benthic feeders and observes that larger beads settled, but it does not directly demonstrate uptake of microplastics from sediments; it describes ingestion of settling particles at the sediment surface as likely. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Previous studies show that microplastic uptake by freshwater invertebrates is size-specific and feeding-type dependent, and irregularly shaped microplastics need longer clearance time than spherical ones.

    “This is in accordance with previous studies showing that microplastic uptake by freshwater invertebrates is size- specific and feeding type dependent and that irregularly shaped microplastics need a significant longer clearance time in comparison to spherical microplastics.11,15”

    From Microplastic Effect Thresholds for Freshwater Benthic Macroinvertebrates (2018) · cites this paper as [15]

    The Abstract and Results and Discussion (Species) show that uptake varies with particle size and feeding strategy. Results and Discussion (Size) says the study tested only spheres and suggests that depuration of irregular particles may differ; it does not establish that irregular particles take significantly longer to clear. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Organisms of various trophic levels ingest or uptake microplastics, either directly or indirectly.

    “Both laboratory experiments and in situ observations have confirmed that organisms of various trophic levels ingest or uptake microplastics, either directly or indirectly (Cole et al., 2013;Provencher et al., 2018;Scherer et al., 2017;Setälä et al., 2014).”

    From No Effect of Realistic Concentrations of Polyester Microplastic Fibers on Freshwater Zooplankton Communities (2024) · cites this paper as Scherer et al., 2017

    The Abstract reports laboratory ingestion of microplastics by five freshwater invertebrate species, and the Introduction reports ingestion in field-collected marine and freshwater species. The Results and Discussion (Species) describe transfer through trophic levels as a possibility, not a confirmed observation of indirect uptake. Thus, the source supports ingestion across species and settings, but not the claim that indirect uptake has been confirmed. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Differences between study outcomes may be due to exposure medium and greater bioavailability of suspended particles compared with sediment-mixed particles.

    “Such differences between study outcomes may relate to (a) differences in the exposure medium, as the presence of natural particles seems to reduce the ingestion of microplastics in freshwater invertebrates,15 and (b) to a higher bioavailability of particles in suspension as compared to particles mixed in the sediment as in the present bioassays.”

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

1 of the 69 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Scherer, C., Brennholt, N., Reifferscheid, G., & Wagner, M.
Affiliations
  • Goethe University Frankfurt (DE)
  • Federal Institute of Hydrology (DE)
Corresponding author
Scherer, Christian
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2017-12-05
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
17006-17006
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2770802549
Cited by
448
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 45 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 66 · 2023: 58 · 2022: 64 · 2021: 63 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 1
FWCI
12.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BIBSYS Brage (BIBSYS (Norway)) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Publication Server of Goethe University Frankfurt am Main (Goethe University Frankfurt) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
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, microplastic ingestion, freshwater invertebrates, feeding type, developmental stages, Daphnia magna, Chironomus riparius, Physella acuta, Gammarus pulex, Lumbriculus variegatus, polystyrene microspheres
MeSH terms
Animals, Chironomidae, Daphnia, Eating, Fresh Water, Invertebrates, Plastics, Water Pollutants, Chemical, Ecosystem, Food Chain, Amphipoda

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