Cited by 55Microplastics and Plastic PollutionEnvironmental Toxicology and EcotoxicologyPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts

Synthetic microfiber and microbead exposure and retention time in model aquatic species under different exposure scenarios

Open access
Bour, Agathe, Hossain, Shahadat, Taylor, Mark, Sumner, Mark, Carney Almroth, Bethanie·2020·Frontiers in Environmental Science

Abstract

Synthetic microfibers have been reported in most aquatic environments and represent a large proportion of environmental microplastics. However, they remain largely under-represented in microplastic ecotoxicity studies. The present study aims to investigate particle interaction with, and retention time in, aquatic organisms comparing microfibers and microbeads. We used brine shrimp (Artemia sp.) and fish (Gasterosteus aculeatus) as invertebrate and vertebrate models, respectively. Organisms were exposed to a mixture of microbeads (polyethylene, 27 – 32 µm) and microfibers (dope dyed polyester; 500 µm-long) for 2h, at high concentrations (100 000 part./L) in order to maximize organism-particles interaction. Artemia were exposed in presence or absence of food. Fish were exposed either via the trophic route or directly via water, and water exposures were performed either in freshwater or seawater. In absence of food, Artemia ingested high numbers of microbeads, retained in their digestive tract for up to 96h. Microfiber ingestion was very limited and their egestion fast. In presence of food, no microfiber was ingested, microbead ingestion was limited and egestion was fast (48h). Limited particle ingestion was observed in fish exposed via water, and particle retention time in gut did not exceed 48h, both for direct and trophic exposure. However, water exposures resulted in higher number of particles present in gills, and average retention time was higher in gills, compared to gut. This suggests that gills are organs susceptible to microplastic exposure, and should be taken into account in fish exposure and effect studies. Our results show that particle ingestion and retention by organisms differ between microbeads and microfibers, suggesting particle selection based on size, shape and/or color, and species-specific selective feeding. We also showed that the presence of food results in limited particle ingestion and retention in Artemia, and that microbeads are more likely to be transferred to organisms from upper trophic levels than microfibers. Finally, fish exposure to particles was not significantly different between freshwater and seawater conditions.

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 · 10.3389/fenvs.2020.00083

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?

  • Studies evaluating fiber toxicity on single species are currently underrepresented in ecotoxicity research and even less represented in community-level studies.

    “Despite fibers emerging as a dominant morphology found in nature, studies evaluating fiber toxicity on single species are currently still underrepresented in ecotoxicity research (Bour et al., 2020) and evidently even less represented in community-level studies.”

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 60 · Cited by 55

Authors
Bour, A., Hossain, S., Taylor, M., Sumner, M., & Carney Almroth, B.
Affiliations
  • University of Gothenburg (SE)
  • University of Leeds (GB)
Corresponding author
Bour, Agathe
Venue
Frontiers in Environmental Science
Published
2020-06-26
Volume
8
ISSN
2296-665X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3037063422
Cited by
55
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3
FWCI
1.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Environmental Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas
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
synthetic microfibers, microbeads, microplastics, particle ingestion, particle residence time, Artemia, Gasterosteus aculeatus, selective feeding, trophic transfer, food availability, polyester microfibers, polyethylene microbeads, ecotoxicology

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