Cited by 102Microplastics and Plastic PollutionEnvironmental Toxicology and EcotoxicologyPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts

Microplastic contamination in Great Lakes fish

Munno, Keenan, Helm, Paul A., Rochman, Chelsea, George, Tara, Jackson, Donald A.·2022·Conservation Biology

Abstract

Freshwater ecosystems, generally adjacent to human population and more contaminated relative to adjacent marine ecosystems, are vulnerable to microplastic contamination. We sampled 7 species of fish from Lake Ontario and Lake Superior and assessed their gastrointestinal (GI) tracts to quantify ingested microplastics and other anthropogenic particles. A subset of the microparticles were chemically analyzed to confirm polymer types and anthropogenic origins. We documented the highest concentration of microplastics and other anthropogenic microparticles ever reported in bony fish. We found 12,442 anthropogenic microparticles across 212 fish (8 species) from nearshore Lake Ontario, 943 across 50 fish (1 species) from Humber River, and 3094 across 119 fish (7 species) from Lake Superior. Fish from Lake Ontario had the greatest mean abundance of anthropogenic microparticles in their GI tracts (59 particles/fish [SD 104]), with up to 915 microparticles in a single fish. Fish from Lake Superior contained a mean [SD] of 26 [74] particles/fish, and fish from Humber River contained 19 [14] particles/fish. Most particles were microfibers. Overall, ≥90% of particles were anthropogenic, of which 35‐59% were microplastics. Polyethylene (24%), polyethylene terephthalate (20%), and polypropylene (18%) were the most common microplastics. Ingestion of anthropogenic particles was significantly different among species within Lake Ontario ( p < 0.05), and the abundance of anthropogenic particles increased as fish length increased in Lake Ontario ( ρ = 0.62). Although we cannot extrapolate the concentration of microplastics in the water and sediments of these fish, the relatively high abundance of microplastics in the GI tracts of fish suggests environmental exposure may be above threshold concentrations for risk.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/cobi.13794

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Munno, K., Helm, P. A., Rochman, C., George, T., & Jackson, D. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (CA)
Corresponding author
Munno, Keenan
Venue
Conservation Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-07-05
Volume
36
Issue
1
Pages
e13794-e13794
ISSN
  • 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-1739
OpenAlex
W3180551516
Cited by
102
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 3
FWCI
4.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Conservation Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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, Great Lakes, Lake Ontario, Lake Superior, Humber River, freshwater fish, gastrointestinal tract, microfibers, polyethylene, polyethylene terephthalate, polypropylene, fish consumption, bony fishes, fish length, polymer types
MeSH terms
Microplastics, Animals, Conservation of Natural Resources, Environmental Monitoring, Plastics, Water Pollutants, Chemical, Ecosystem, Lakes

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