Cited by 46Microplastics and Plastic PollutionEnvironmental Toxicology and EcotoxicologyPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts

No evidence of spherical microplastics (10–300 μm) translocation in adult rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) after a two-week dietary exposure

Open access
Kim, Joel, Poirier, David G., Helm, Paul A., Bayoumi, Malak, Rochman, Chelsea M.·2020·PLOS ONE

Abstract

The consumption of fish contaminated with microplastics is often cited as a pathway for human exposure. However, because their guts are generally removed before consumption, exposure may be low compared to other routes such as shellfish, drinking water and dust. Still, microplastics have been found to translocate from the gut to other tissues, making exposure from eating fish fillets or other seafood products a potential concern. To better understand fish as an exposure route for microplastics in humans, we tested hypotheses about whether translocation occurs and if efficiency of translocation is dependent on particle size. We investigated the amount and distribution of fluorescent polyethylene microspheres (10-300 μm) in the gut, liver, fillets and gonads of adult rainbow trout after a two-week dietary exposure. Fish were fed food pellets dosed with up to ~9,800 microspheres per gram of food. Total exposures over the entire experiment ranged from ~80,000-850,000 microspheres per fish. We did not find any particles in the fillets, liver, or gonads of any fish, suggesting that translocation of spherical microplastics of this size range does not occur in adult rainbow trout. The quantity of microplastics found in the gut was also low or absent after a 24-hour depuration period, indicating effective excretion in this laboratory population. This research suggests that the consumption of fish fillets may not be a significant exposure pathway for microspheres >10 μm in size to contaminate humans. Future studies should test for different sizes, morphologies and species to further our understanding.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0239128

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.

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?

  • Gut retention time of microplastics in fish is reported to range from ∼1 to 6 d, based on laboratory experiments.

    “Gut retention time, based on laboratory experiments that measured microplastics in feces and/or in animals sampled over time after dietary exposure, is reported to range from ∼1 to 6 d in fish.79–82”

    From Microplastics and Anthropogenic Particles in Recreationally Caught Freshwater Fish from an Urbanized Region of the North American Great Lakes (2024) · cites this paper as [79]

    The Results and discussion report microplastics remaining in six of ten exposed rainbow trout 24 hours after feeding, supporting retention at approximately one day. The paper sampled fish at that time point; it does not establish a gut-retention range extending to six days or measure retention over time. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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 37 · Cited by 46

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Series EP. Biological Test Method: Acute Lethality Test Using Rainbow Trout. Facilities. 1990; 2:2.
  2. Cox KD, Covernton GA, Davies HL, Dower JF, Juanes F, Dudas SE. Human consumption of microplas- tics. Environmental science & technology. 2019 Jun 5; 53(12):7068-74.

Authors
Kim, J., Poirier, D. G., Helm, P. A., Bayoumi, M., & Rochman, C. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (CA)
Corresponding author
Kim, Joel
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2020-09-25
Volume
15
Issue
9
Pages
e0239128
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3087804249
Cited by
46
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1
FWCI
1.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Ministère de l’Environnement, de la Protection de la nature et des Parcs
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, rainbow trout, dietary exposure, polyethylene microspheres, fish fillets, human dietary exposure, particle size, depuration, liver, gonads, seafood contamination
MeSH terms
Dietary Exposure, Microplastics, Animals, Animal Feed, Female, Food Contamination, Humans, Male, Microspheres, Particle Size, Water Pollutants, Chemical, Oncorhynchus mykiss, Seafood

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