ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
My Activity
CONTENT TYPES

Figure 1Loading Img
RETURN TO ISSUEPREVContaminants in Aqua...Contaminants in Aquatic and Terrestrial EnvironmentsNEXT

Bioavailability of Microplastics to Marine Zooplankton: Effect of Shape and Infochemicals

  • Zara L. R. Botterell
    Zara L. R. Botterell
    Marine Ecology and Biodiversity, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, West Hoe, Plymouth PL1 3DH, U.K.
    School of Life Sciences, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester CO4 3SQ, U.K.
  • Nicola Beaumont
    Nicola Beaumont
    Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, West Hoe, Plymouth PL1 3DH, U.K.
    More by Nicola Beaumont
  • Matthew Cole
    Matthew Cole
    Marine Ecology and Biodiversity, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, West Hoe, Plymouth PL1 3DH, U.K.
    More by Matthew Cole
  • Frances E. Hopkins
    Frances E. Hopkins
    Marine Biogeochemistry and Ocean Observations, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, West Hoe, Plymouth PL1 3DH, U.K.
  • Michael Steinke
    Michael Steinke
    School of Life Sciences, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester CO4 3SQ, U.K.
    More by Michael Steinke
  • Richard C. Thompson
    Richard C. Thompson
    Marine Biology and Ecology Research Centre (MBERC), School of Biological and Marine Sciences, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth PL4 8AA, U.K.
  • , and 
  • Penelope K. Lindeque*
    Penelope K. Lindeque
    Marine Ecology and Biodiversity, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, West Hoe, Plymouth PL1 3DH, U.K.
    *Email: [email protected]
Cite this: Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 19, 12024–12033
Publication Date (Web):September 14, 2020
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c02715

Copyright © 2020 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under CC-BY.

  • Open Access

Article Views

8036

Altmetric

-

Citations

81
LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICS
PDF (2 MB)
Supporting Info (1)»

Abstract

The underlying mechanisms that influence microplastic ingestion in marine zooplankton remain poorly understood. Here, we investigate how microplastics of a variety of shapes (bead, fiber, and fragment), in combination with the algal-derived infochemicals dimethyl sulfide (DMS) and dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP), affect the ingestion rate of microplastics in three species of zooplankton, the copepods Calanus helgolandicus and Acartia tonsa and larvae of the European lobster Homarus gammarus. We show that shape affects microplastic bioavailability to different species of zooplankton, with each species ingesting significantly more of a certain shape: C. helgolandicus—fragments (P < 0.05); A. tonsa—fibers (P < 0.01); H. gammarus larvae—beads (P < 0.05). Thus, different feeding strategies between species may affect shape selectivity. Our results also showed significantly increased ingestion rates by C. helgolandicus on all microplastics that were infused with DMS (P < 0.01) and by H. gammarus larvae and A. tonsa on DMS-infused fibers and fragments (P < 0.05). By using a range of more environmentally relevant microplastics, our findings highlight how the feeding strategies of different zooplankton species may influence their susceptibility to microplastic ingestion. Furthermore, our novel study suggests that species reliant on chemosensory cues to locate their prey may be at an increased risk of ingesting aged microplastics in the marine environment.

Introduction

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

Microplastic (microscopic plastic, 1 μm to 5 mm) is abundant and widespread in the marine environment and has been identified as a contaminant of global environmental and economic concern. (1−3) The risks that larger plastic debris presents to marine organisms have been well documented, (4−7) yet there still remain knowledge gaps regarding the impact of microplastics. (1) Microplastics are not uniform; they are a complex array of different shapes, sizes, and polymers. (8) Microbeads and fibers can enter the environment via multiple pathways with direct release from waste water treatment works being a substantial source through the use of plastics in cosmetics and synthetic clothing. (9,10) The degradation of larger plastic debris due to ultraviolet (UV) radiation and wave action can form irregularly shaped microplastic fragments. (10,11) Due to their small size, microplastics are bioavailable via ingestion to a wide range of organisms. (12) Ingestion of microplastics has been recorded in many marine species including cetaceans, (13,14) seabirds, (15) molluscs, (16) and zooplankton. (17,18) In species at lower trophic levels, such as zooplankton, ingested microplastics have been shown to cause several detrimental effects, including reduced feeding behavior, growth, and fecundity. (19−21)
Zooplankton are a crucial food source and provide an important link in the marine food web between phytoplankton and higher trophic levels. (22) Zooplankton comprise many different species of marine invertebrates and some vertebrates (e.g., fish larvae), including those species that spend their entire life cycle (holoplankton), and those with larval stages (meroplankton), in the plankton. Meroplanktonic species develop into adults that are often important constituents of fin-fish and shellfish stocks, which are ecologically and economically important. (23) Previous laboratory studies have shown that zooplankton have the capacity to ingest several different types of microplastics, (17,24) which has also been documented in zooplankton from the wild. (18,25,26) While many studies have investigated the microplastic presence and effect of ingestion, the underlying mechanisms and factors that influence plastic ingestion still remain poorly understood.
Food selectivity has been widely evidenced in copepods, with the capacity to discriminate between algal prey and microplastics. (27,28) There are several abiotic and biotic factors that can affect the biological availability (bioavailability) of microplastics to an organism. (8,29) While the overlap in size of the microplastic and the gape of the individual’s mouth is key to ingestion and capture efficiency, other factors such as microplastic shape may affect handling and the capacity for ingestion. (8,28) Many previous laboratory studies have used polystyrene microspheres that have been shown to be readily ingested by a number of species, indicating that this shape is bioavailable to a broad range of taxa. (17,19,30) However, several studies from the field investigating microplastic ingestion in zooplankton found that microfibers were most commonly ingested. (18,25,26) It is unclear whether this shape is more bioavailable or whether it is the most abundant microplastic in the areas sampled. Recent research has shown that differently shaped microplastics can alter the severity of certain biological effects. (31,32) For example, in sheepshead minnow larvae (Cyprinodon variegatus), irregularly shaped microplastic fragments negatively affect swimming behavior, decreasing the total distance traveled and their maximum velocity. (32) Additionally Cole et al. showed that the presence of fibrous microplastics can significantly alter prey selectivity in the copepod Calanus finmarchicus. (31) These negative effects could reduce food intake and the available energy for growth, development, and reproductive success.
There is growing evidence that chemosensory cues, not just physical factors, could influence the bioavailability of microplastics. (24,33−35) In the marine environment, plastic can provide a durable substrate for biofouling biota that may produce infochemicals. (36,37) Colonization by infochemical-producing microorganisms, and subsequently the formation and growth of biofilms, could lead to plastic debris acquiring a chemical signal that is attractive to those species that use chemosensory mechanisms when locating, identifying, and ingesting food. (33,38−40) One such chemical is dimethyl sulfide (DMS), a marine trace gas derived from dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP) that is produced by phytoplankton. (39) DMS concentrations typically range from 1 to 7 nM in the surface ocean, with peak concentrations in the North Atlantic Ocean during June–July owing to the annual coccolithophore and dinoflagellate blooms. (41) Recent research has identified that many species demonstrate foraging behavior in the presence of DMS, including loggerhead turtles, (42) seabirds, (33) hard corals, (34) and copepods. (43) The chemical precursor DMSP has also been shown to induce swimming and aggregation behavior in forage fish. (44,45) Breckels et al. demonstrated that DMS plumes stimulated the grazing behavior response of Calanus helgolandicus at concentrations of 1.8–13.1 nM. (46) Recent research by Procter et al. showed that C. helgolandicus ingested significantly more DMS-infused microfibers than virgin microfibers. (35) This indicates that complex chemosensory cues may have a role in mediating foraging behavior and therefore consumption of microplastic debris.
Currently, little is known about what factors influence the uptake of microplastics by zooplankton. To better understand the mechanisms behind microplastic ingestion, it is vital to use microplastics that are more representative of those found in the marine environment. (8,47) In the present study, we investigate the effect of microplastic shape and the presence of the infochemicals DMSP and DMS on microplastic ingestion by three species of zooplankton: the widely distributed suspension feeder C. helgolandicus, a temperate calanoid copepod and dominant mesozooplankton species in the North Atlantic; the globally distributed calanoid copepod Acartia tonsa, an ambush and suspension feeder; and the ambush feeder larvae of Homarus gammarus (European lobster)—a species of both economic and social importance in the U.K. We test the hypotheses that (1) species-specific ingestion is significantly different between microplastics of various shapes and (2) infusion of microplastics with DMS or DMSP significantly increases the bioavailability and ingestion of the differently shaped microplastics.

Methods

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

Zooplankton Sampling and Husbandry

Zooplankton samples were collected from the Western Channel Observatory station L4, U.K. (50°15′N, 4°13′W) using 200 μm WP2 plankton nets in February 2019. The samples were transported within insulated boxes, containing natural seawater, to Plymouth Marine Laboratory (Plymouth, U.K.) within 3 h of sampling. Adult female C. helgolandicus were identified using a dissecting microscope (Wild M5-49361; ×20 to ×50 magnification) through assessment of their life stage, size, shape, and distinct genital pore. Individuals were carefully picked out using Storkbill forceps and transferred to 5 L beakers containing filtered seawater. Seawater was filtered via a filtration rig through a 0.22 μm nitrocellulose filter (Millipore). European lobster larvae (H. gammarus) (stage 1) were obtained in August 2018 from the National Lobster Hatchery, Padstow, U.K. Adult A. tonsa were provided from culture by Reefshotz, U.K. in September 2019. Female A. tonsa were identified using a dissecting microscope through assessment of their size, shape. and distinct genital pore. All samples were processed and experiments were conducted in controlled-temperature (CT) laboratories matched to the ambient sea surface temperature (SST) of 18 °C (H. gammarus, August 2018) and 10 °C (C. helgolandicus, February 2019) or culture temperature of 21 °C (A. tonsa).

Preparation of Microplastics

Virgin 20 μm polystyrene beads (Spherotech, Illinois), fresh-cut virgin 20 μm x 10 μm nylon fibers (Goodfellow Cambridge Ltd., prepared following Cole method (48)), and virgin ≤20 μm nylon fragments (Goodfellow Cambridge Ltd.) were used to represent our three shape classifications (Supporting Information, Figure 1). All microplastics used were yellow in color. The different polymers were used as at the time no nylon microbeads were available. While the size of the microplastics was kept as uniform as possible, due to the different shapes, surface area (beads: 1.26 × 103 μm2, fibers: 0.79 × 103 μm2, fragments: >1.26 × 103 μm2) and volume (beads: 4.19 × 103 μm2, fibers: 1.57 × 103 μm2, fragments: <4.19 × 103 μm2) varied.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Ingestion rates ± standard error (SE) (particles individual–1 h–1) of differently shaped microplastics including beads, fibers, and fragments for (a) C. helgolandicus, (b) H. gammarus, and (c) A. tonsa. The asterisks denote the level of significant difference in ingestion rates, *P ≤ 0.05, ** P ≤ 0.01. Illustrations by Vivienne Botterell.

For the experiments with C. helgolandicus and A. tonsa, glass DURAN experimental bottles (500 mL, total volume 615 mL) were ∼75% filled with 0.22 μm filtered seawater (FSW) and spiked with the 15 mL vials of either beads, fibers, or fragments of virgin (control) or DMSP- or DMS-infused beads, fibers, or fragments. The bottles were then carefully filled to the brim with FSW, which resulted in an overall concentration of 80 microplastics mL–1 in each of the experimental bottles. All microplastic treatments were incubated in MilliQ water in 15 mL gas-tight vials in a refrigerator at 3 °C for 3 days before use in grazing experiments.
Environmentally relevant concentrations of DMSP and DMS were chosen for our infused treatments. (41,49) DMSP-infused beads/fibers/fragments were prepared by infusion in an aqueous 20 nM DMSP solution (Centrum voor Analyse, Spectroscopie and Synthese, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, The Netherlands). DMS-infused beads/fibers/fragments were prepared by infusion in a 5 nM aqueous DMS solution (Sigma-Aldrich Company Ltd.). The addition of the infused microplastics to the experimental flasks was performed by directly adding the entire 15 mL solution to the flask at the start of the experiment. This addition to the 600 mL of seawater in the flask resulted in a negligible calculated change in ambient DMSP/DMS concentrations of 0.49 nM (DMSP) and 0.12 nM (DMS).
The same process was used for the European lobster larvae. However, due to their cannibalistic nature under limited food availability, larvae were treated individually using smaller experimental bottles (50 mL) and gas-tight vials (1.9 mL). The concentrations of microplastics, DMSP, and DMS remained the same.
At the microplastic concentrations used in this experiment, we were unable to measure the final concentrations of DMS/DMSP fused to the microplastics as the levels are far below the detection limit of our methods.

Grazing Experiments

For all species and for each shape of microplastic, the grazing experiments consisted of (1) a virgin microplastic control group; (2) a DMSP-infused microplastic treatment group; and (3) a DMS-infused microplastics treatment group. Following the initial results with H. gammarus larvae, we refined the protocol in the C. helgolandicus and A. tonsa experiments to include additional controls of (4) DMSP and microplastics added to the experimental bottles separately but concurrently (DMSP noninfused); and (5) DMS and microplastics added to the experimental bottles separately but concurrently (DMS noninfused). Copepods and lobster larvae were starved for a period of 24 h prior to the experiment.
In the C. helgolandicus and A. tonsa experiment, there were six replicates per treatment for virgin, infused/noninfused DMSP and DMS treatment groups, using copepods that had been acclimatized to the laboratory conditions for 2 days. The algae Dunaliella tertiolecta, Prorocentrum micans, and Thalassiosira rotula were provided as a source of prey during the acclimation period for C. helgolandicus. They were cultured on f/2 media, with addition of silica for T. rotula, and maintained at 13 °C at a 16:8 light/dark cycle. A. tonsa copepods were maintained on their culture media of Tetraselmis suecica, Isochrysis galbana (T-Iso), and Chaetoceros muelleri.
Grazing experiments were carried out in gas-tight 500 mL Pyrex bottles (total volume 615 mL), filled to the brim with 0.2 μm filtered seawater (FSW). Five healthy adult female C. helgolandicus or A. tonsa were transferred to each experimental bottle, followed by the addition of microplastics with or without DMSP or DMS. Copepods were not added to the T0 (time zero, beginning of the experiment) experimental bottles. The experimental bottles were secured to a plankton wheel, rotated at 5 rpm, and left for 6 h in the dark in a CT room at 10 °C (C. helgolandicus) or 21 °C (A. tonsa). After 6 h, the experiment was stopped and the copepods were removed from each experimental bottle by gently passing the contents of the bottle through a 150 μm mesh into a beaker. The water was returned to the bottle and stored at 3 °C for microplastic enumeration using a FlowCam (Fluid Imaging Technologies Ltd.; see below). The mesh containing the copepods was examined under a dissection microscope and any mortality was recorded. Copepods were then transferred into an Eppendorf tube containing 1 mL of 4% recycled formalin.
In the H. gammarus larvae experiment, there were ten replicates per treatment for virgin, DMSP and DMS treatment groups, using lobster larvae that had been acclimatized to the laboratory conditions for 2 days. Frozen plankton (TMC Gamma Blister Red Plankton) was provided as a source of prey during the acclimation period.
Grazing experiments were carried out in gas-tight 50 mL Pyrex bottles (total volume 65 mL), filled to the brim with 0.2 μm filtered seawater (FSW). One healthy European lobster larva was transferred to each experimental bottle, followed by the addition of microplastics with or without DMSP or DMS. Lobster larvae were not added to the T0 experimental bottles. The experimental bottles were secured to a plankton wheel, rotated at 5 rpm, and left for 3 h in the dark in a CT room at 18 °C. We then followed the same process as above in the experiments, preserving the individuals in 1 mL of 4% recycled formalin.
A FlowCAM (VS-4 series) was used in autoimage mode to count the number of microplastic particles within a sample and determine the plastic concentration. For the analysis, 40 mL of the sample was pumped at 2 mL min–1 through the flow chamber fitted with a 100 μm x 2 mm flow cell and a 10x objective lens, which captured the images of the particles at 20 frames s–1. FlowCAM uses the software program VisualSpreadsheet (v 3.4), which can sort the images by selected characteristics such as length. Any images that were not microplastic particles were deleted and the remaining images saved as a new list, which would then be used to generate a count of particles mL–1. The FlowCAM was used to determine the initial microplastic concentration (T0) and the postexperimental microplastic concentration (T6).
Grazing rates were estimated by comparing changes in the abundance of the microplastics over the experimental period for differently shaped microplastics with or without the addition of DMSP and DMS. Ingestion rates (particles organism–1 h–1) were calculated using an adapted version of the Frost (1972) equation, which accounted for the absence of prey growth during the incubations. (35,50)
The grazing coefficient (g) was calculated from eq 1
(1)
where T0 is the concentration of microplastics mL–1 at the beginning of the experiment, T6 (T3 for H. gammarus larvae experiment) is the concentration of microplastics mL–1 at the end of the experiment (after 3 or 6 h), and T is the time in hours (Supporting Information, Table 1). The clearance rates (F, mL organism–1 h–1) were calculated from eq 2
(2)
where V is the volume of the experimental bottle (mL), g is the grazing coefficient calculated in eq 1, and n is the number of zooplankton per bottle. The ingestion rate (I) is then calculated using eq 3
(3)

Statistical Analysis

All data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel (2016) and the statistical software R (version 3.4.1, R Development Core Team 2017). Data were tested for normality using a Shapiro–Wilk test and homogeneity of variance was visually inspected to satisfy parametric requisites. A one-way analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA) and Tukey’s post hoc tests were used to compare the ingestion rates from grazing experiments. The significance level was set at α = 0.05.

Results

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

Influence of Shape on Microplastic Ingestion

The copepod C. helgolandicus demonstrated a significant variation in the ingestion rates of differently shaped microplastics (Figure 1a, one-way ANOVA (F(2,15) = 3.78, P = 0.047)). A post hoc Tukey test showed that the fragments were ingested significantly more than the beads (P = 0.043). The fragments were ingested at a mean rate (±SE) of 500.3 (±83.9) fragments copepod–1 h–1, in comparison to the mean number of beads, 144.5 (±38.4) beads copepod–1 h–1, and fibers, 251.9 (±134.0) fibers copepod–1 h–1 (Figure 1a).
H. gammarus larvae also exhibited a significant variation in the ingestion rates of the different microplastic shapes (Figure 1b, one-way ANOVA (F(2,26) = 4.36, P = 0.0233)). A post hoc Tukey test showed that the beads were ingested significantly more than the fibers (P = 0.026) and substantially more than the fragments (P = 0.074). The beads were ingested at a mean rate (±SE) of 1138.7 (±133.4) beads lobster–1 h–1, in comparison to the mean number of fibers, 402.3 (±45.6) fibers lobster–1 h–1, and fragments, 530.7 (±281.7) fragments lobster–1 h–1(Figure 1b).
The copepod A. tonsa demonstrated a significant variation in the ingestion rates of differently shaped microplastics (Figure 1c, one-way ANOVA (F(2,15) = 6.6, P = 0.009)). A post hoc Tukey test showed that the fibers were ingested significantly more than the beads (P = 0.008) and substantially more than the fragments (P = 0.06). The fibers were ingested at a mean rate (±SE) of 587.5 (±243.4) fibers copepod–1 h–1, in comparison to the mean number of beads, 204.1 (±87.3) beads copepod–1 h–1, and fragments, 471.5 (±196.4) fragments copepod–1 h–1 (Figure 1c).

Influence of Infochemicals on Microplastic Ingestion

The copepod C. helgolandicus demonstrated an increase in the average ingestion rates of the microplastics that had been infused with DMSP and DMS, across all three shapes, in comparison to virgin and also noninfused microplastics (infochemical and microplastics added to the experimental bottles concurrently) (Figure 2). Analysis showed that there were significant differences between the infochemical treatment groups with all three shapes (beads: Figure 2a, one-way ANOVA (F(4,25) = 6.235, P = 0.0013), fibers: Figure 2b (F(4,25) = 8.214, P ≤ 0.001), and fragments: Figure 2c (F(4,25) = 15.21, P ≤ 0.001)). A post hoc Tukey test showed that DMS infusion significantly increased the ingestion rates of the beads (Figure 2a, P ≤ 0.001), fibers (Figure 2b, P ≤ 0.01), and fragments (Figure 2c, P ≤ 0.001) in comparison to the virgin control treatments. In addition, it showed that all microplastics that were infused with DMS were ingested significantly more than those that were not infused with DMS (beads: Figure 2a, P ≤ 0.05, fibers: Figure 2b, P ≤ 0.001, and fragments: Figure 2c, P ≤ 0.001). This was also found for DMSP-infused and noninfused fragments (Figure 2c, P ≤ 0.05). There were no significant differences between the virgin control and the noninfused microplastic control for both infochemicals across all microplastic shapes.

Figure 2

Figure 2. C. helgolandicus ingestion rates ± SE (particles copepod–1 h–1) of differently shaped microplastics: (a) beads, (b) fibers, and (c) fragments, with the different treatments of virgin, DMSP infused, DMS infused, DMSP noninfused, and DMS noninfused. The black significance bars relate to virgin controls and the gray significance bars relate to noninfused controls. The asterisks denote the levels of significant difference in the ingestion rates, *P ≤ 0.05, **P ≤ 0.01, ***P ≤ 0.001. Illustration by Vivienne Botterell.

In the DMSP- and DMS-infused treatments, the average ingestion rate of the fibers and fragments by H. gammarus larvae increased (Figure 3). Analysis showed that there were significant differences between the infochemical treatment groups for both fibers (Figure 3b, one-way ANOVA (F(2,27) = 4.481, P = 0.021)) and fragments (Figure 3c, one-way ANOVA (F(2,27) = 6.372, P = 0.0054)). A post hoc Tukey test showed that the presence of DMS significantly increased the ingestion rates of the fibers (Figure 3b, P ≤ 0.05) and fragments (Figure 3c, P ≤ 0.01) in comparison to the control virgin treatments. The presence of the infochemicals had no effect on the ingestion rates of the beads (Figure 3a, one-way ANOVA (F(2,26) = 2.863, P = 0.075)).

Figure 3

Figure 3. H. gammarus (larvae) ingestion rates ± SE (particles lobster–1 h–1) of the virgin, DMSP-infused, and DMS-infused microplastics for all three shapes: (a) beads, (b) fibers, and (c) fragments. The asterisks denote the levels of significant difference in the ingestion rates, *P ≤ 0.05, **P ≤ 0.01. Illustration by Vivienne Botterell.

In the DMSP- and DMS-infused treatments, the average ingestion rate of the fibers and fragments by A. tonsa increased (Figure 4). Analysis showed that there were significant differences between the infochemical treatment groups for both fibers (Figure 4b, one-way ANOVA (F(2,25) = 11.6, P ≤ 0.001)) and fragments (Figure 4c, one-way ANOVA (F(2,25) = 21.2, P ≤ 0.001)). A post hoc Tukey test showed that the presence of DMS significantly increased the ingestion rates of the fibers (Figure 4b, P ≤ 0.05) and fragments (Figure 4c, P ≤ 0.01) in comparison to the control virgin treatments. The presence of the infochemicals had no effect on the ingestion rates of the beads (Figure 4a, one-way ANOVA (F(2,25) = 1.7, P = 0.18)). In addition, it showed that the fibers and fragments that were infused with DMS were ingested significantly more than those that were not infused with DMS (Figure 4b, P ≤ 0.001, and fragments: Figure 4c, P ≤ 0.001). This was also found for the DMSP-infused and noninfused fragments (Figure 4c, P ≤ 0.01). There were no significant differences between the virgin control and the noninfused microplastic control for both infochemicals across all microplastic shapes.

Figure 4

Figure 4. A. tonsa ingestion rates ± SE (particles copepod–1 h–1) of differently shaped microplastics: (a) beads, (b) fibers, and (c) fragments, with the different treatments of virgin, DMSP infused, DMS infused, DMSP noninfused, and DMS noninfused. The black significance bars relate to virgin controls and the gray significance bars relate to noninfused controls. The asterisks denote the levels of significant difference in the ingestion rates, *P ≤ 0.05, **P ≤ 0.01, ***P ≤ 0.001. Illustration by Vivienne Botterell.

Discussion

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

Our study reveals that both shape and the infusion of infochemicals can affect the ingestion rate of microplastics in C. helgolandicus, A. tonsa, and H. gammarus larvae. Each species selectively ingested significantly more of a certain microplastic shape (Figure 1), indicating that shape is an important factor that influences microplastic bioavailability. C. helgolandicus ingested more fragments; H. gammarus ingested more beads; and A. tonsa ingested the most fibers. We further observed that infusion with the infochemical DMS significantly increased the ingestion rates of microplastics in all three species (Figures 24). This highlights that chemosensory species utilizing DMS as an infochemical may be at an increased risk of microplastic debris ingestion. These findings add to the growing evidence of the importance of testing environmentally relevant microplastics in zooplankton grazing studies in contrast to the predominately used virgin beads, to fully elucidate the mechanisms behind microplastic ingestion. (8)

Effect of Microplastic Shape on Its Bioavailability to Zooplankton

Previous laboratory research has shown that many species of zooplankton will readily ingest microplastic beads including C. helgolandicus and A. tonsa. (17,51) However, microplastic ingestion has not previously been observed in H. gammarus larvae. The fragments and fibers have also been shown to be ingested by C. helgolandicus. (28,31) Furthermore, in wild copepods sampled in the natural environment, irregularly shaped and fibrous microplastics have been identified. (18,25) However, it is unclear whether these microplastics from the wild samples are due to prey selectivity of the species, differences in gut retention time, or simply a representation of the most prevalent microplastic in the environment under investigation.
Our results show that while all microplastic shapes were ingested, each of the species selectively ingested one shape preferentially over the others (Figure 1). The selectivity of the species could be explained by the different feeding strategies, with particular shapes being easier to handle, or species-specific capacities to ingest. C. helgolandicus ingested the most fragments, H. gammarus the most beads, and A. tonsa the most fibers. C. helgolandicus is a suspension feeder, using appendages around their mouths to generate a feeding current. (52,53) Whereas A. tonsa is an ambush feeder, a complex grazing behavior requiring a stimulus to optimize capturing prey items yet avoiding nonfood items, but can also switch to suspension feeding when consuming small phytoplankton by generating a feeding current. (54,55) It is the smallest of the three species used in these experiments and therefore may have found the smaller diameter of the fibers (10 μm) easier to ingest. Additionally, it is possible that differently shaped microplastics may generate different eddies, through disturbances in the feeding current or water flow, which may be more or less attractive to species with different feeding strategies. Similarly to A. tonsa, H. gammarus larvae are also thought to be ambush feeders consuming both phytoplankton and zooplankton. (56) Unlike copepods, which have a singular naupliar eye that is light sensitive, lobster larvae have two compound eyes, which are not only light sensitive but also have a large view angle and are able to detect fast movement. (57,58) This more developed spatial vision may aid the lobster in prey selection and subsequently may have played a role in the selectivity of the microplastic beads over the other shapes. The microplastic shape may also resemble the species’ natural prey source. The microplastics used in this current study overlapped in size with the species prey. The beads and fragments may resemble spherical algae and the fibers could resemble chain-forming diatoms. (28) Shape selectivity could also be explained by species shifting their prey preference. (31) Recent research by Cole et al. and Coppock et al. suggest that Calanus species may shift prey selectivity to avoid ingesting microalgae that are of a similar size and shape to the microplastics that they were exposed to, potentially to avoid consuming the plastic particles. (28,31) However, future behavioral experiments are recommended to further understand this mechanism of microplastic shape selectivity.
Certain microplastic shapes have been shown to have more adverse effects than others in species of zooplankton, with previous research highlighting negative effects on swimming behavior by the fragments (32) and feeding behavior by the fibers. (31) It is crucial to understand which shapes have the highest bioavailability in a species to understand the effect commonly ingested microplastic shapes could have on the health of the individual as any negative effects could reduce food intake and available energy for growth, development, and reproductive success. Future experiments should consider differences in gut retention time between differently shaped microplastics as certain shapes may be retained longer than others. This is imperative to understanding whether the microplastics we find in zooplankton sampled in the natural environment were due to selectivity of the species, representative of the microplastics present in the environment, or are retained for longer in the gut. The length of time the microplastics are retained for has implications not only for the health of the individual but also for the transport of the microplastics through the water column by diel vertical migration of zooplankton and also through the food web when zooplankton is consumed by predators. (28,59)

Role of Infochemicals in Increasing the Bioavailability of the Microplastics

To investigate whether these chemicals would stimulate grazing, C. helgolandicus, A. tonsa, and H. gammarus larvae were exposed to microplastics (beads, fibers, and fragments) that had been infused in artificial DMS and DMSP solutions of environmentally relevant concentrations. Our results show that the presence of the infochemical DMS can lead to significant increases in the ingestion rate of microplastics in three species of zooplankton. This indicates that chemosensory species utilizing DMS as an infochemical may be at an increased risk of microplastic debris ingestion.
In C. helgolandicus, the ingestion rates of all three microplastic shapes were significantly increased when infused with DMS and while not significant, DMSP infusion also substantially increased microplastics uptake. H. gammarus larvae exhibited a similar pattern to A. tonsa, with significantly more microplastic fibers and fragments ingested when infused with DMS. However, DMSP infusion only substantially increased microplastic fragment ingestion in H. gammarus and neither infochemical affected the ingestion rate of the microplastic beads. However, DMSP infusion did significantly increase the ingestion rate of both fibers and fragments in A. tonsa, but like DMS had no effect on bead ingestion. While the majority of the microplastics infused with DMS were ingested at a higher rate in all species, DMS infusion had no effect on the ingestion of the microplastic beads by the lobster larvae. However, the microplastic beads in the virgin treatment group were ingested at the highest rate in comparison to the fibers and fragments, which implies that the microplastic shape had a higher bioavailability and an overriding effect on the chemoattractive potential of DMS. It is possible that the more developed vision of the larvae likely aided in prey detection and selection, and that the larvae used a range of chemo- and mechanoreceptors in combination with visual cues. This highlights that in some species, microplastic shape, based on the particles that are easier to handle or mimic the preferred prey items, may present a greater bioavailability than other factors including attraction by infochemicals.
Following the initial results with H. gammarus larvae, we refined the protocol in the C. helgolandicus and A. tonsa experiments, to include additional controls in order to investigate whether simply the presence of infochemicals in the surrounding seawater induced an increase in the ingestion rates. Here, the addition of virgin, noninfused microplastics to the experimental flasks was performed separately but concurrently to the addition of 15 mL of DMS or DMSP solution (see Methods, Preparation of Microplastics). However, there was no significant difference in the ingestion rates between the virgin controls and the noninfused controls across all microplastic shapes. Furthermore, our results (Figures 2 and 4) show that there was a significant difference between the noninfused DMS controls and the infused DMS treatments for almost all three different shapes of the microplastics. This therefore suggests that it is not just the presence of DMS in the seawater, but the presence of DMS on the plastic itself that stimulates increased ingestion.
In the marine environment, the infochemicals DMSP and DMS could be present on the plastic surface due to biofilm formation by DMSP/DMS-producing microorganisms, which form part of the diverse microbial community of the plastisphere. (38) Many of these organisms within the plastisphere are important prey items readily consumed by several species of zooplankton. (60) This could increase the ability of zooplankton to locate the plastic particles if they mimic the scent of natural prey and in turn could increase consumption of the microplastics. It is important to note that these experiments are a simplification of the natural environment separating visual biofilm effects from chemical cues associated with DMSP/DMS. There still remains a significant knowledge gap in assessing the ability of the microplastics to gain an infochemical signature through the formation of a biofilm. This work seeks to further understand the interspecies response to DMSP/DMS, yet future investigation is still required to understand the response to additional infochemicals and importantly the detection thresholds of the chemosensory organisms.

Environmental Relevance and Risk Assessment

In this study, we demonstrate that both the shape and the presence of infochemicals can affect the ingestion rate of the microplastics in three species of zooplankton. This research highlights the importance of using a greater diversity of the environmentally relevant microplastics in laboratory experiments. For our infochemical infusion experiments, we used environmentally relevant concentrations of DMSP and DMS. While this triggered increased uptake of the microplastics in all three of the species, currently there is very little understanding of the interspecies response to other infochemicals, limited knowledge on the detection threshold of chemosensory species, and a poor understanding of the chemical gradients emanating from the microscopic particles. The microplastics used in this study were chosen to be as similar as possible (i.e., size and color); however, due to the use of different shapes, they did vary slightly in volume and surface area, which could affect the ingestion rates in some species. It is possible that those microplastics with a greater surface area, such as fragments, may gain a greater infochemical signature. Similarly, polymer type could also affect the ingestion rates. Different polymers have been shown to develop different microbial biofilm communities, which in turn could produce different infochemicals. (61) While we used nylon fibers and fragments we also used polystyrene beads as we were unable to find a nylon equivalent. The concentration of the microplastics used in this study exceeds those currently observed in the marine environment; however, there is very little environmental information relating to microplastics in the size range of 10–30 μm due to technical difficulties in sampling, extracting, and identifying such particles. (31) However, where data is available, they suggest an inverse relationship between particle size and abundance, and hence, the smaller the microplastics, the larger their concentration. (62) Recent research by Lindeque et al. has demonstrated that the 333 μm nets commonly used for microplastic sampling underestimate microplastic abundance, particularly for <333 μm microplastics that are within the optimal prey size range of numerous marine organisms. (63) While it is important to investigate the risk that environmentally relevant microplastic concentrations pose to marine organisms, it is essential to understand the mechanisms by which microplastics become bioavailable to a species, can cause harm, identify end points, and understand the sensitivity of different species at every life stage, and it is also crucial to conduct these studies at elevated/future scenario concentrations. (8,31) Such research is key to establishing no-effect thresholds for the development of effective risk assessments for species, populations, and the ecosystem.

Supporting Information

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.0c02715.

  • Images of the microplastics and microplastic concentration data at T0, T3, and T6 (PDF)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

  • Corresponding Author
    • Penelope K. Lindeque - Marine Ecology and Biodiversity, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, West Hoe, Plymouth PL1 3DH, U.K. Email: [email protected]
  • Authors
    • Zara L. R. Botterell - Marine Ecology and Biodiversity, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, West Hoe, Plymouth PL1 3DH, U.K.School of Life Sciences, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester CO4 3SQ, U.K.Orcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-1001-3203
    • Nicola Beaumont - Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, West Hoe, Plymouth PL1 3DH, U.K.
    • Matthew Cole - Marine Ecology and Biodiversity, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, West Hoe, Plymouth PL1 3DH, U.K.Orcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-5910-1189
    • Frances E. Hopkins - Marine Biogeochemistry and Ocean Observations, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, West Hoe, Plymouth PL1 3DH, U.K.
    • Michael Steinke - School of Life Sciences, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester CO4 3SQ, U.K.
    • Richard C. Thompson - Marine Biology and Ecology Research Centre (MBERC), School of Biological and Marine Sciences, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth PL4 8AA, U.K.
  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

We would like to thank the captain and crew of Plymouth Marine Laboratory’s RV Plymouth Quest for assistance during sampling, Andrea McEvoy for guidance on zooplankton identification, Elaine Fileman for instruction on the use of FlowCam, and Joceline Triner for access to facilities at the University of Plymouth. We thank Vivienne Botterell for the zooplankton illustrations and for permission to use them in our figures. ZLRB was supported by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) through the EnvEast Doctoral Training Partnership (grant number: NE/L002582/1). We thank the editor and three anonymous reviewers for their constructive and insightful feedback that improved the manuscript.

References

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

This article references 63 other publications.

  1. 1
    Thompson, R. C.; Olson, Y.; Mitchell, R. P.; Davis, A.; Rowland, S. J.; John, A. W. G.; McGonigle, D.; Russell, A. E. Lost at Sea: Where Is All the Plastic?. Science 2004, 304, 838,  DOI: 10.1126/science.1094559
  2. 2
    MSFD GES Technical Subgroup on Marine Litte. Marine Litter - technical recommendations for the implementation of MSFD requirements. UR—Scientific and Technical Research Series, 2011, 91p.
  3. 3
    Worm, B.; Lotze, H. K.; Jubinville, I.; Wilcox, C.; Jambeck, J. Plastic as a Persistent Marine Pollutant. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2017, 42, 126,  DOI: 10.1146/annurev-environ-102016-060700
  4. 4
    Duncan, E. M.; Botterell, Z. L. R.; Broderick, A. C.; Galloway, T. S.; Lindeque, P. K.; Nuno, A.; Godley, B. J. A global review of marine turtle entanglement in anthropogenic debris: a baseline for further action. Endanger Species Res. 2017, 34, 431448,  DOI: 10.3354/esr00865
  5. 5
    Laist, D. W. Impacts of Marine Debris: Entanglement of Marine Life in Marine Debris Including a Comprehensive List of Species with Entanglement and Ingestion Records. In Marine Debris, Springer: New York, NY, 1997, pp 99139.
  6. 6
    Baulch, S.; Perry, C. Evaluating the impacts of marine debris on cetaceans. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2014, 80, 210221,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.12.050
  7. 7
    Lavers, J. L.; Bond, A. L.; Hutton, I. Plastic ingestion by flesh-footed shearwaters (Puffinus carneipes): Implications for fledgling body condition and the accumulation of plastic-derived chemicals. Environ. Pollut. 2014, 187, 124129,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.12.020
  8. 8
    Botterell, Z. L. R.; Beaumont, N.; Dorrington, T.; Steinke, M.; Richard, C.; Lindeque, P. K. Bioavailability and effects of microplastics on marine zooplankton: a review. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 245, 98110,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.10.065
  9. 9
    Napper, I. E.; Thompson, R. C. Release of synthetic microplastic plastic fibres from domestic washing machines: Effects of fabric type and washing conditions. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 112, 3945,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.09.025
  10. 10
    Thompson, R. C. Sources, Distribution, and Fate of Microscopic Plastics in Marine Environments. In Hazardous Chemicals Associated with Plastics in the Marine Environment; Springer: Cham, 2019; Vol. 78, pp 121133.
  11. 11
    Barnes, D. K. A.; Galgani, F.; Thompson, R. C.; Barlaz, M. Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London 2009, 364, 19851998,  DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0205
  12. 12
    Galloway, T. S.; Cole, M.; Lewis, C. Interactions of microplastic debris throughout the marine ecosystem. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2017, 1, 18,  DOI: 10.1038/s41559-017-0116
  13. 13
    Besseling, E.; Foekema, E. M.; Van Franeker, J. A.; Leopold, M. F.; Kühn, S.; Bravo Rebolledo, E. L.; Heβe, E.; Mielke, L.; Ijzer, J.; Kamminga, P.; Koelmans, A. A. Microplastic in a macro filter feeder: Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 95, 248252,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.04.007
  14. 14
    Lusher, A. L.; Hernandez-Milian, G.; O’Brien, J.; Berrow, S.; O’Connor, I.; Officer, R. Microplastic and macroplastic ingestion by a deep diving, oceanic cetacean: The True’s beaked whale Mesoplodon mirus. Environ. Pollut. 2015, 199, 185191,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2015.01.023
  15. 15
    Amélineau, F.; Bonnet, D.; Heitz, O.; Mortreux, V.; Harding, A. M. A.; Karnovsky, N.; Walkusz, W.; Fort, J.; Gremillet, D. Microplastic pollution in the Greenland Sea: Background levels and selective contamination of planktivorous diving seabirds. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 219, 11311139,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.09.017
  16. 16
    Browne, M. A.; Dissanayake, A.; Galloway, T. S.; Lowe, D. M.; Thompson, R. C. Ingested Microscopic Plastic Translocates to the Circulatory System of the Mussel, Mytilus edulis (L.). Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 50265031,  DOI: 10.1021/es800249a
  17. 17
    Cole, M.; Lindeque, P. K.; Fileman, E.; Halsband, C.; Goodhead, R.; Moger, J.; Galloway, T. S. Microplastic ingestion by zooplankton. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 664655,  DOI: 10.1021/es400663f
  18. 18
    Desforges, J.-P. W.; Galbraith, M.; Ross, P. S. Ingestion of Microplastics by Zooplankton in the Northeast Pacific Ocean. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2015, 69, 32030,  DOI: 10.1007/s00244-015-0172-5
  19. 19
    Lee, K.; Shim, W. J.; Kwon, O. Y.; Kang, J. Size-Dependent Effects of Micro Polystyrene Particles in the Marine Copepod Tigriopus japonicus. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 1127811283,  DOI: 10.1021/es401932b
  20. 20
    Cole, M.; Lindeque, P.; Fileman, E.; Halsband, C.; Galloway, T. S. The impact of polystyrene microplastics on feeding, function and fecundity in the marine copepod Calanus helgolandicus. Environ Sci Technol. 2015, 49, 11307,  DOI: 10.1021/es504525u
  21. 21
    Lo, H. K. A.; Chan, K. Y. K. Negative effects of microplastic exposure on growth and development of Crepidula onyx. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 233, 588595,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.10.095
  22. 22
    Kiørboe, T. How zooplankton feed: Mechanisms, traits and trade-offs. Biol. Rev. 2011, 86, 31139,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2010.00148.x
  23. 23
    Worm, B.; Barbier, E. B.; Beaumont, N.; Duffy, J. E.; Folke, C.; Halpern, B. S.; Jackson, J. B. C.; Lotze, H. K.; Micheli, F.; Palumbi, S. R.; Sala, E.; Selkoe, K. A.; Stachowicz, J. J.; Watson, R. Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science 2006, 314, 787790,  DOI: 10.1126/science.1132294
  24. 24
    Vroom, R. J. E.; Koelmans, A. A.; Besseling, E.; Halsband, C. Aging of microplastics promotes their ingestion by marine zooplankton. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 231, 987996,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.088
  25. 25
    Steer, M.; Cole, M.; Thompson, R. C.; Lindeque, P. K. Microplastic ingestion in fish larvae in the western English Channel. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 226, 250259,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.03.062
  26. 26
    Sun, X.; Li, Q.; Zhu, M.; Liang, J.; Zheng, S.; Zhao, Y. Ingestion of microplastics by natural zooplankton groups in the northern South China Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 115, 21724,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.12.004
  27. 27
    Huntley, M. E.; Barthel, K. G.; Star, J. L. Particle rejection by Calanus pacificus: discrimination between similarly sized particles. Mar. Biol. 1983, 74, 15160,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00413918
  28. 28
    Coppock, R. L.; Galloway, T. S.; Cole, M.; Fileman, E. S.; Queirós, A. M.; Lindeque, P. K. Microplastics alter feeding selectivity and faecal density in the copepod, Calanus helgolandicus. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 687, 7809,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.009
  29. 29
    Wright, S. L.; Thompson, R. C.; Galloway, T. S. The physical impacts of microplastics on marine organisms: A review. Environ Pollut. 2013, 178, 483492,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.02.031
  30. 30
    Cole, M.; Galloway, T. S. Ingestion of Nanoplastics and Microplastics by Pacific Oyster Larvae. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 1462514632,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b04099
  31. 31
    Cole, M.; Coppock, R.; Lindeque, P. K.; Altin, D.; Reed, S.; Pond, D. W.; Sørensen, L.; Galloway, T. S.; Booth, A. M. Effects of Nylon Microplastic on Feeding, Lipid Accumulation, and Moulting in a Coldwater Copepod. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 70757082,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b01853
  32. 32
    Choi, J. S.; Jung, Y. J.; Hong, N. H.; Hong, S. H.; Park, J. W. Toxicological effects of irregularly shaped and spherical microplastics in a marine teleost, the sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 129, 231240,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.02.039
  33. 33
    Savoca, M. S.; Wohlfeil, M. E.; Ebeler, S. E.; Nevitt, G. A. Marine plastic debris emits a keystone infochemical for olfactory foraging seabirds. Sci. Adv. 2016, 2, e1600395  DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1600395
  34. 34
    Allen, A. S.; Seymour, A. C.; Rittschof, D. Chemoreception drives plastic consumption in a hard coral. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 124, 198205,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.07.030
  35. 35
    Procter, J.; Hopkins, F. E.; Fileman, E. S.; Lindeque, P. K. Smells good enough to eat: Dimethyl sulfide (DMS) enhances copepod ingestion of microplastics. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 138, 16,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.11.014
  36. 36
    Barnes, D. K. A. Biodiversity: Invasions by marine life on plastic debris. Nature 2002, 416, 808809,  DOI: 10.1038/416808a
  37. 37
    Lobelle, D.; Cunliffe, M. Early microbial biofilm formation on marine plastic debris. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62, 197200,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.10.013
  38. 38
    Zettler, E. R.; Mincer, T. J.; Amaral-Zettler, L. A. Life in the “plastisphere”: Microbial communities on plastic marine debris. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 71377146,  DOI: 10.1021/es401288x
  39. 39
    Yoch, D. C. Dimethylsulfoniopropionate: Its Sources, Role in the Marine Food Web, and Biological Degradation to Dimethylsulfide. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2002, 68, 58045815,  DOI: 10.1128/AEM.68.12.5804-5815.2002
  40. 40
    Pohnert, G.; Steinke, M.; Tollrian, R. Chemical cues, defence metabolites and the shaping of pelagic interspecific interactions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2007, 22, 198204,  DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2007.01.005
  41. 41
    Lana, A.; Bell, T. G.; Simó, R.; Vallina, S. M.; Ballabrera-Poy, J.; Kettle, A. J.; Dachs, J.; Bopp, L.; Saltzman, E. S.; Stefels, J.; Johnson, J. E.; Liss, P. S. An updated climatology of surface dimethlysulfide concentrations and emission fluxes in the global ocean. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 2011, 25, 117,  DOI: 10.1029/2010GB003850
  42. 42
    Endres, C. S.; Lohmann, K. J. Perception of dimethyl sulfide (DMS) by loggerhead sea turtles: A possible mechanism for locating high-productivity oceanic regions for foraging. J. Exp. Biol. 2012, 215, 35353538,  DOI: 10.1242/jeb.073221
  43. 43
    Steinke, M.; Stefels, J.; Stamhuis, E. Dimethyl sulfide triggers search behavior in copepods. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2006, 51, 19251930,  DOI: 10.4319/lo.2006.51.4.1925
  44. 44
    DeBose, J. L.; Nevitt, G. A.; Dittman, A. H. Rapid Communication: Experimental evidence that Juvenile Pelagic Jacks (Carangidae) respond behaviorally to DMSP. J. Chem. Ecol. 2010, 36, 3268,  DOI: 10.1007/s10886-010-9755-9
  45. 45
    DeBose, J. L.; Lema, S. C.; Nevitt, G. A. Dimethylsulfoniopropionate as a foraging cue for reef fishes. Science 2008, 319, 1356,  DOI: 10.1126/science.1151109
  46. 46
    Breckels, M. N.; Roberts, E. C.; Archer, S. D.; Malin, G.; Steinke, M. The role of dissolved infochemicals in mediating predator-prey interactions in the heterotrophic dinoflagellate Oxyrrhis marina. J. Plankton Res. 2011, 33, 629639,  DOI: 10.1093/plankt/fbq114
  47. 47
    Phuong, N. N.; Zalouk-Vergnoux, A.; Poirier, L.; Kamari, A.; Châtel, A.; Mouneyrac, C.; Al, E. Is there any consistency between the microplastics found in the field and those used in laboratory experiments?. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 211, 111123,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2015.12.035
  48. 48
    Cole, M. A novel method for preparing microplastic fibers. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 34519  DOI: 10.1038/srep34519
  49. 49
    Archer, S. D.; Cummings, D. G.; Llewellyn, C. A.; Fishwick, J. R. Phytoplankton taxa, irradiance and nutrient availability determine the seasonal cycle of DMSP in temperate shelf seas. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2009, 394, 111124,  DOI: 10.3354/meps08284
  50. 50
    Frost, B. W. Effects of size and concentration of food particles on the feeding behaviour of the marine planktonic copepod Calanus pacificus. Limnol. Oceanogr. 1972, 17, 805815,  DOI: 10.4319/lo.1972.17.6.0805
  51. 51
    Syberg, K.; Nielsen, A.; Khan, F. R.; Banta, G. T.; Palmqvist, A.; Jepsen, P. M. Microplastic potentiates triclosan toxicity to the marine copepod Acartia tonsa (Dana). J. Toxicol. Environ. Health, Part A 2017, 80, 136971,  DOI: 10.1080/15287394.2017.1385046
  52. 52
    Cannon, B. Y. H. G. On the feeding mechanism of the copepod, Calanus finmarchicus and Diaptomus gracilis. J. Exp. Biol. 1928, 6, 13144
  53. 53
    Paffenhöfer, G.-A.; Strickler, J. R.; Alcaraz, M. Suspension-feeding by herbivorous calanoid copepods: A cinematographic study. Mar. Biol. 1982, 67, 193199,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00401285
  54. 54
    Donaghay, P. L.; Small, L. F. Food selection capabilities of the estuarine copepod Acartia clausi. Mar. Biol. 1979, 52, 137146,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00390421
  55. 55
    Saiz, E.; Kiorboe, T. Predatory and suspension feeding of the copepod Acartia tonsa in turbulent environments. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 1995, 122, 147158,  DOI: 10.3354/meps122147
  56. 56
    Juinio, M. A. R.; Cobb, J. S. Natural diet and feeding habits of the postlarval lobster Homarus americanus. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 1992, 85, 8391,  DOI: 10.3354/meps085083
  57. 57
    Stearns, D. E.; Forward, R. B. Photosensitivity of the calanoid copepod Acartia tonsa. Mar. Biol. 1988, 253, 247253,  DOI: 10.1007/bf00392766
  58. 58
    Meyer-Rochow, V. B. Larval and adult eye of the Western Rock Lobster (Panulirus longipes). Cell Tissue Res. 1975, 162, 43957,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00209345
  59. 59
    Setälä, O.; Fleming-Lehtinen, V.; Lehtiniemi, M. Ingestion and transfer of microplastics in the planktonic food web. Environ. Pollut. 2014, 185, 7783,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.10.013
  60. 60
    Amaral-Zettler, L. A.; Zettler, E. R.; Mincer, T. J. Ecology of the plastisphere. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2020, 18, 139151,  DOI: 10.1038/s41579-019-0308-0
  61. 61
    Pinto, M.; Langer, T. M.; Huffer, T.; Hofmann, T.; Herndl, G. J. The composition of bacterial communities associated with plastic biofilms differs between different polymers and stages of biofilm succession. PLoS One 2019, 14, e0217165  DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217165
  62. 62
    Enders, K.; Lenz, R.; Stedmon, C. A.; Nielsen, T. G. Abundance, size and polymer composition of marine microplastics ≥10 μm in the Atlantic Ocean and their modelled vertical distribution. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 100, 7081,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.09.027
  63. 63
    Lindeque, P. K.; Cole, M.; Coppock, R. L.; Lewis, C. N.; Miller, R. Z.; Watts, A. J. R.; Wilson-McNeal, A.; Wright, S. L.; Galloway, T. S. Are we underestimating microplastic abundance in the marine environment? A comparison of microplastic capture with nets of. Environ Pollut. 2020, 265, 114721  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114721

Cited By

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

This article is cited by 81 publications.

  1. Robby Rynek, Mine B. Tekman, Christoph Rummel, Melanie Bergmann, Stephan Wagner, Annika Jahnke, Thorsten Reemtsma. Hotspots of Floating Plastic Particles across the North Pacific Ocean. Environmental Science & Technology 2024, 58 (9) , 4302-4313. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c05039
  2. Zipei Dong, Wen-Xiong Wang. Tracking Nano- and Microplastics Accumulation and Egestion in a Marine Copepod by Novel Fluorescent AIEgens: Kinetic Modeling of the Rhythm Behavior. Environmental Science & Technology 2023, 57 (49) , 20761-20772. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c04726
  3. Zhuo Chen, Meng Du, Xu-Dan Yang, Wei Chen, Yu-Sheng Li, Chen Qian, Han-Qing Yu. Deep-Learning-Based Automated Tracking and Counting of Living Plankton in Natural Aquatic Environments. Environmental Science & Technology 2023, 57 (46) , 18048-18057. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c00253
  4. Kuddithamby Gunaalan, Torkel Gissel Nielsen, Rocío Rodríguez Torres, Claudia Lorenz, Alvise Vianello, Ceelin Aila Andersen, Jes Vollertsen, Rodrigo Almeda. Is Zooplankton an Entry Point of Microplastics into the Marine Food Web?. Environmental Science & Technology 2023, 57 (31) , 11643-11655. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c02575
  5. Rocío Rodríguez Torres, Rodrigo Almeda, Jiayi Xu, Nanna Hartmann, Sinja Rist, Philipp Brun, Torkel Gissel Nielsen. The Behavior of Planktonic Copepods Minimizes the Entry of Microplastics in Marine Food Webs. Environmental Science & Technology 2023, 57 (1) , 179-189. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c04660
  6. Jiayi Xu, Rocío Rodríguez-Torres, Sinja Rist, Torkel Gissel Nielsen, Nanna Bloch Hartmann, Philipp Brun, Daoji Li, Rodrigo Almeda. Unpalatable Plastic: Efficient Taste Discrimination of Microplastics in Planktonic Copepods. Environmental Science & Technology 2022, 56 (10) , 6455-6465. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c00322
  7. Karly McMullen, Paola Calle, Omar Alvarado‐Cadena, Matthew D. Kowal, Eduardo Espinoza, Gustavo A. Domínguez, Ana Tirapé, Félix Hérnán Vargas, Edward Grant, Brian P. V. Hunt, Evgeny A. Pakhomov, Juan José Alava. Ecotoxicological Assessment of Microplastics and Cellulose Particles in the Galápagos Islands and Galápagos Penguin Food Web. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 2024, 1 https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5874
  8. Xiaoxin Chen, Andrew J. Sweetman. An investigation into the effect of UV irradiation and biofilm colonization on adsorption and desorption behavior of polyurethane (PU) microplastics for bisphenol A (BPA). Environmental Technology & Innovation 2024, 35 , 103662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2024.103662
  9. Bo Zhao, Fang Chen, Qiang Yao, Manfeng Lin, Kexin Zhou, Shican Mi, Haixia Pan, Xin Zhao. Toxicity effects and mechanism of micro/nanoplastics and loaded conventional pollutants on zooplankton: An overview. Marine Environmental Research 2024, 6 , 106547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2024.106547
  10. Katey Valentine, Claire Hughes, Alistair Boxall. Plastic Litter Emits the Foraging Infochemical Dimethyl Sulfide after Submersion in Freshwater Rivers. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 2024, https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5880
  11. Pengfei Zhao, Siyu Yang, Yaoying Zheng, Liqin Zhang, Yongli Li, Jiapeng Li, Wei Wang, Zhanqi Wang. Polylactic acid microplastics have stronger positive effects on the qualitative traits of rice (Oryza sativa L.) than polyethylene microplastics: Evidence from a simulated field experiment. Science of The Total Environment 2024, 917 , 170334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.170334
  12. Rui Ding, Yankai Dong, Zhuozhi Ouyang, Xin Zuo, Yu Zhang, Xuetao Guo. Reducing uncertainty and confronting ignorance about the potential impacts of microplastic on animals: A critical review. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry 2024, 171 , 117484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2023.117484
  13. Wei Yang, Qian Tan, Haixiao Zhao, Feiyang Xia, Cangbai Li, Xiao Ma, Wei Li. Eutrophication-driven infochemical dimethylsulfide accelerates carbon transfer in freshwater food chain. Journal of Environmental Management 2024, 353 , 120155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120155
  14. Jiwon Kong, Jieun Lee, Sanghyun Jeong. Distribution of microplastics in rainfall and their control by a permeable pavement in low-impact development facility. Journal of Environmental Management 2024, 351 , 119710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119710
  15. Aditya Kishore Dash, Abanti Pradhan, Lala Behari Sukla. Environmental Occurrence and Contemporary Health Issues of Micro Plastics. 2024, 113-136. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51792-1_7
  16. Oladimeji Ayo Iwalaye, Maria T. Maldonado. Microcosm study of the effects of polyester microfibers on the indigenous marine amphipod (Cyphocaris challengeri) in the Strait of Georgia (BC, Canada). Science of The Total Environment 2024, 906 , 167301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.167301
  17. H. Thilagam, P. Pandi, S. Swetha, S. Rekha, R. Krishnamurthy, S. Gopalakrishnan. Examining the Environmental Concerns Caused by the Microplastic Contamination in Marine Ecosystem. 2024, 75-103. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54565-8_4
  18. Milena Roberta Freire Da Silva, Karolayne Silva Souza, Manoella Almeida Candido, Fabricio Motteran, Lívia Caroline Alexandre De Araújo, Maria Betânia Melo De Oliveira. Bacteria as Ecological Tools: Pioneering Microplastic Biodegradation. Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental 2023, 18 (4) , e04707. https://doi.org/10.24857/rgsa.v18n4-059
  19. Joshua Moyal, Preeti H. Dave, Mengjie Wu, Shooka Karimpour, Satinder K. Brar, Huan Zhong, Raymond W. M. Kwong. Impacts of Biofilm Formation on the Physicochemical Properties and Toxicity of Microplastics: A Concise Review. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 2023, 261 (1) https://doi.org/10.1007/s44169-023-00035-z
  20. Adam Porter, Jasmin A. Godbold, Ceri N. Lewis, Georgie Savage, Martin Solan, Tamara S. Galloway. Microplastic burden in marine benthic invertebrates depends on species traits and feeding ecology within biogeographical provinces. Nature Communications 2023, 14 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-43788-w
  21. Duojia Wang, Sabrina Yanan Jiang, Changchang Fan, Longshan Fu, Huada Daniel Ruan. Occurrence and correlation of microplastics and dibutyl phthalate in rivers from Pearl River Delta, China. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2023, 197 , 115759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.115759
  22. Wei Yang, Qian Tan, Shenhua Qian, Yuyue Huang, Elvis Genbo Xu, Xizi Long, Wei Li. Natural infochemical DMSP stimulates the transfer of microplastics from freshwater zooplankton to fish: An olfactory trap. Aquatic Toxicology 2023, 265 , 106735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2023.106735
  23. María B. Alfonso, Dhugal J. Lindsay, Andrés H. Arias, Haruka Nakano, Suppakarn Jandang, Atsuhiko Isobe. Zooplankton as a suitable tool for microplastic research. Science of The Total Environment 2023, 905 , 167329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.167329
  24. Saif Uddin, Montaha Behbehani, Nazima Habibi, Scott W. Fowler, Hanan A. Al-Sarawi, Carlos Alonso-Hernandez. Microplastics Residence Time in Marine Copepods: An Experimental Study. Sustainability 2023, 15 (20) , 14970. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152014970
  25. Aaron Ridall, Sean Asgari, Jeroen Ingels. The role of microbe-microplastic associations in marine Nematode feeding behaviors. Environmental Pollution 2023, 335 , 122308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2023.122308
  26. David Leistenschneider, Adèle Wolinski, Jingguang Cheng, Alexandra ter Halle, Guillaume Duflos, Arnaud Huvet, Ika Paul-Pont, Franck Lartaud, François Galgani, Édouard Lavergne, Anne-Leila Meistertzheim, Jean-François Ghiglione. A critical review on the evaluation of toxicity and ecological risk assessment of plastics in the marine environment. Science of The Total Environment 2023, 896 , 164955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.164955
  27. Jing-Chun Feng, Zhifeng Yang, Wenliang Zhou, Xingwei Feng, Fuwen Wei, Bo Li, Chuanxin Ma, Si Zhang, Linlin Xia, Yanpeng Cai, Yi Wang. Interactions of Microplastics and Methane Seepage in the Deep-Sea Environment. Engineering 2023, 29 , 159-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2022.08.009
  28. Y. Y. Chen, X. T. Cheng, Y. Q. Zeng. The occurrence of microplastic in aquatic environment and toxic effects for organisms. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 2023, 20 (9) , 10477-10490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-023-04789-w
  29. Thuan Van Tran, A.A. Jalil, Tung M. Nguyen, Thuy Thi Thanh Nguyen, Walid Nabgan, Duyen Thi Cam Nguyen. A review on the occurrence, analytical methods, and impact of microplastics in the environment. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology 2023, 102 , 104248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etap.2023.104248
  30. Abhishek Mandal, Nisha Singh, Arijit Mondal, Mohmmed Talib, Raktima Basu, Mrinal Kanti Biswas, Gopala Krishna Darbha. The extent of microplastic pollution along the eastern coast of India: Focussing on marine waters, beach sand, and fish. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2023, 194 , 115265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.115265
  31. Alejandra Valdez-Cibrián, Ma. del Carmen Flores-Miranda, Eva R. Kozak. An accessible method to standardize polyethylene microsphere (<100 μm) concentrations for zooplankton ingestion experiments. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2023, 194 , 115351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.115351
  32. Kun Li, Han Su, Xiaojia Xiu, Chi Liu, Wanqi Hao. Tire wear particles in different water environments: occurrence, behavior, and biological effects—a review and perspectives. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2023, 30 (39) , 90574-90594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-28899-7
  33. Chung Ngo Tang, Victor S. Kuwahara, Sandric Chee Yew Leong, Pak Yan Moh, Teruaki Yoshida. Effect of monsoon on microplastic bioavailability and ingestion by zooplankton in tropical coastal waters of Sabah. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2023, 193 , 115182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.115182
  34. Swati Sharma, Aprajita Bhardwaj, Monika Thakur, Anita Saini. Understanding microplastic pollution of marine ecosystem: a review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2023, 11 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-28314-1
  35. Veronica Nava, Sudeep Chandra, Julian Aherne, María B. Alfonso, Ana M. Antão-Geraldes, Katrin Attermeyer, Roberto Bao, Mireia Bartrons, Stella A. Berger, Marcin Biernaczyk, Raphael Bissen, Justin D. Brookes, David Brown, Miguel Cañedo-Argüelles, Moisés Canle, Camilla Capelli, Rafael Carballeira, José Luis Cereijo, Sakonvan Chawchai, Søren T. Christensen, Kirsten S. Christoffersen, Elvira de Eyto, Jorge Delgado, Tyler N. Dornan, Jonathan P. Doubek, Julia Dusaucy, Oxana Erina, Zeynep Ersoy, Heidrun Feuchtmayr, Maria Luce Frezzotti, Silvia Galafassi, David Gateuille, Vitor Gonçalves, Hans-Peter Grossart, David P. Hamilton, Ted D. Harris, Külli Kangur, Gökben Başaran Kankılıç, Rebecca Kessler, Christine Kiel, Edward M. Krynak, Àngels Leiva-Presa, Fabio Lepori, Miguel G. Matias, Shin-ichiro S. Matsuzaki, Yvonne McElarney, Beata Messyasz, Mark Mitchell, Musa C. Mlambo, Samuel N. Motitsoe, Sarma Nandini, Valentina Orlandi, Caroline Owens, Deniz Özkundakci, Solvig Pinnow, Agnieszka Pociecha, Pedro Miguel Raposeiro, Eva-Ingrid Rõõm, Federica Rotta, Nico Salmaso, S. S. S. Sarma, Davide Sartirana, Facundo Scordo, Claver Sibomana, Daniel Siewert, Katarzyna Stepanowska, Ülkü Nihan Tavşanoğlu, Maria Tereshina, James Thompson, Monica Tolotti, Amanda Valois, Piet Verburg, Brittany Welsh, Brian Wesolek, Gesa A. Weyhenmeyer, Naicheng Wu, Edyta Zawisza, Lauren Zink, Barbara Leoni. Plastic debris in lakes and reservoirs. Nature 2023, 619 (7969) , 317-322. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06168-4
  36. Fatima Haque, Chihhao Fan. Microplastics in the Marine Environment: A Review of Their Sources, Formation, Fate, and Ecotoxicological Impact. 2023https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107896
  37. Lin Huang, Weixia Zhang, Weishang Zhou, Liangbiao Chen, Guangxu Liu, Wei Shi. Behaviour, a potential bioindicator for toxicity analysis of waterborne microplastics: A review. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry 2023, 162 , 117044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2023.117044
  38. Shan Chen, Jin-Lei Yang, Yao-Sheng Zhang, Hong-Yu Wang, Xin-Ying Lin, Rong-Yue Xue, Meng-Ya Li, Shi-Wei Li, Albert L. Juhasz, Lena Q. Ma, Dong-Mei Zhou, Hong-Bo Li. Microplastics affect arsenic bioavailability by altering gut microbiota and metabolites in a mouse model. Environmental Pollution 2023, 324 , 121376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2023.121376
  39. Beatriz Rios-Fuster, Montserrat Compa, Carme Alomar, Mercè Morató, Diane Ryfer, Margarita Villalonga, Salud Deudero. Are seafloor habitats influencing the distribution of microplastics in coastal sediments of a Marine Protected Area?. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2023, 30 (17) , 49875-49888. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-25536-1
  40. Xuan Hou, Li Mu, Xiangang Hu, Shuqing Guo. Warming and microplastic pollution shape the carbon and nitrogen cycles of algae. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2023, 447 , 130775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.130775
  41. Yu Shen, Mingxing Zhang, Zhaochuan Li, Shuo Cao, Yadi Lou, Yi Cong, Fei Jin, Ying Wang. Long-Term Toxicity of 50-nm and 1-μm Surface-Charged Polystyrene Microbeads in the Brine Shrimp Artemia parthenogenetica and Role of Food Availability. Toxics 2023, 11 (4) , 356. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics11040356
  42. Federico Citterich, Angelina Lo Giudice, Maurizio Azzaro. A plastic world: A review of microplastic pollution in the freshwaters of the Earth's poles. Science of The Total Environment 2023, 869 , 161847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.161847
  43. Qian-Yao Ma, Gui-Peng Yang. Roles of phytoplankton, microzooplankton, and bacteria in DMSP and DMS transformation processes in the East China Continental Sea. Progress in Oceanography 2023, 213 , 103003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2023.103003
  44. Philip J. Landrigan, Hervé Raps, Maureen Cropper, Caroline Bald, Manuel Brunner, Elvia Maya Canonizado, Dominic Charles, Thomas C. Chiles, Mary J. Donohue, Judith Enck, Patrick Fenichel, Lora E. Fleming, Christine Ferrier-Pages, Richard Fordham, Aleksandra Gozt, Carly Griffin, Mark E. Hahn, Budi Haryanto, Richard Hixson, Hannah Ianelli, Bryan D. James, Pushpam Kumar, Amalia Laborde, Kara Lavender Law, Keith Martin, Jenna Mu, Yannick Mulders, Adetoun Mustapha, Jia Niu, Sabine Pahl, Yongjoon Park, Maria-Luiza Pedrotti, Jordan Avery Pitt, Mathuros Ruchirawat, Bhedita Jaya Seewoo, Margaret Spring, John J. Stegeman, William Suk, Christos Symeonides, Hideshige Takada, Richard C. Thompson, Andrea Vicini, Zhanyun Wang, Ella Whitman, David Wirth, Megan Wolff, Aroub K. Yousuf, Sarah Dunlop. The Minderoo-Monaco Commission on Plastics and Human Health. Annals of Global Health 2023, 89 (1) https://doi.org/10.5334/aogh.4056
  45. Kefeng Li, Jane C. Naviaux, Sai Sachin Lingampelly, Lin Wang, Jonathan M. Monk, Claire M. Taylor, Clare Ostle, Sonia Batten, Robert K. Naviaux. Historical biomonitoring of pollution trends in the North Pacific using archived samples from the Continuous Plankton Recorder Survey. Science of The Total Environment 2023, 865 , 161222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.161222
  46. Na Li, Zhuotong Zeng, Yafei Zhang, Hui Zhang, Ning Tang, Yihui Guo, Lan Lu, Xin Li, Ziqian Zhu, Xiang Gao, Jie Liang. Higher toxicity induced by co-exposure of polystyrene microplastics and chloramphenicol to Microcystis aeruginosa: Experimental study and molecular dynamics simulation. Science of The Total Environment 2023, 866 , 161375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.161375
  47. Muhammad Junaid, Shulin Liu, Guanglong Chen, Hongping Liao, Jun Wang. Transgenerational impacts of micro(nano)plastics in the aquatic and terrestrial environment. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2023, 443 , 130274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.130274
  48. Wen-Xiong Wang. Environmental toxicology of marine microplastic pollution. Cambridge Prisms: Plastics 2023, 1 https://doi.org/10.1017/plc.2023.9
  49. Jianli Liu, Qiang Liu, Lihui An, Ming Wang, Qingbo Yang, Bo Zhu, Jiannan Ding, Chuanyu Ye, Yuyao Xu. Microfiber Pollution in the Earth System. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 2022, 260 (1) https://doi.org/10.1007/s44169-022-00015-9
  50. Shanying He, Yufei Wei, Chunping Yang, Zhenli He. Interactions of microplastics and soil pollutants in soil-plant systems. Environmental Pollution 2022, 315 , 120357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.120357
  51. Sonia Bejarano, Valeska Diemel, Anna Feuring, Mattia Ghilardi, Tilmann Harder. No short-term effect of sinking microplastics on heterotrophy or sediment clearing in the tropical coral Stylophora pistillata. Scientific Reports 2022, 12 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-05420-7
  52. Leah M. Thornton Hampton, Hans Bouwmeester, Susanne M. Brander, Scott Coffin, Matthew Cole, Ludovic Hermabessiere, Alvine C. Mehinto, Ezra Miller, Chelsea M. Rochman, Stephen B. Weisberg. Research recommendations to better understand the potential health impacts of microplastics to humans and aquatic ecosystems. Microplastics and Nanoplastics 2022, 2 (1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s43591-022-00038-y
  53. Tao Wang, Shiye Zhao, Lixin Zhu, James C. McWilliams, Luisa Galgani, Roswati Md Amin, Ryota Nakajima, Wensheng Jiang, Mengli Chen. Accumulation, transformation and transport of microplastics in estuarine fronts. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment 2022, 3 (11) , 795-805. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-022-00349-x
  54. Marta Sendra, Araceli Rodriguez-Romero, María Pilar Yeste, Julián Blasco, Antonio Tovar-Sánchez. Products released from surgical face masks can provoke cytotoxicity in the marine diatom Phaeodactylum tricornutum. Science of The Total Environment 2022, 841 , 156611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156611
  55. Danlian Huang, Haojie Chen, Maocai Shen, Jiaxi Tao, Sha Chen, Lingshi Yin, Wei Zhou, Xinya Wang, Ruihao Xiao, Ruijin Li. Recent advances on the transport of microplastics/nanoplastics in abiotic and biotic compartments. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2022, 438 , 129515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.129515
  56. Lucy Polhill, Robyn de Bruijn, Linda Amaral‐Zettler, Antonia Praetorius, Annemarie van Wezel. Daphnia magna's Favorite Snack: Biofouled Plastics. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 2022, 41 (8) , 1977-1981. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5393
  57. Marion Köster, Gustav-Adolf Paffenhöfer. Feeding of Marine Zooplankton on Microplastic Fibers. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 2022, 83 (2) , 129-141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-022-00948-1
  58. Zhenling Li, Min Chao, Xiaokang He, Xiaoping Lan, Chenhao Tian, Chenghong Feng, Zhenyao Shen. Microplastic bioaccumulation in estuary-caught fishery resource. Environmental Pollution 2022, 306 , 119392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119392
  59. Rabia Nousheen, Daniel Rittschof, Imran Hashmi. Toxic effects of pristine and aged polystyrene microplastics on selective and continuous larval culture of acorn barnacle Amphibalanus amphitrite.. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology 2022, 94 , 103912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etap.2022.103912
  60. Yuan Liu, Kai Zhang, Shaopeng Xu, Meng Yan, Danyang Tao, Luoluo Chen, Yong Wei, Chenxi Wu, Guijian Liu, Paul K.S. Lam. Heavy metals in the “plastisphere” of marine microplastics: adsorption mechanisms and composite risk. Gondwana Research 2022, 108 , 171-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2021.06.017
  61. Matthieu Dreillard, Caroline De Faria Barros, Virgile Rouchon, Coralie Emonnot, Véronique Lefebvre, Maxime Moreaud, Denis Guillaume, Fabrice Rimbault, Frédéric Pagerey. Quantification and morphological characterization of microfibers emitted from textile washing. Science of The Total Environment 2022, 832 , 154973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154973
  62. Zara L.R. Botterell, Melanie Bergmann, Nicole Hildebrandt, Thomas Krumpen, Michael Steinke, Richard C. Thompson, Penelope K. Lindeque. Microplastic ingestion in zooplankton from the Fram Strait in the Arctic. Science of The Total Environment 2022, 831 , 154886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154886
  63. Masoud M. Ardestani. Microplastics in the environment: their sources, distribution, and dangerous status. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution 2022, 233 (5) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-022-05630-9
  64. Winnie Courtene‐Jones, Nathaniel J. Clark, Astrid C. Fischer, Natalie S. Smith, Richard C. Thompson. Ingestion of Microplastics by Marine Animals. 2022, 349-366. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119768432.ch12
  65. Risa Nakano, Rıdvan Kaan Gürses, Yuji Tanaka, Yasuyuki Ishida, Takashi Kimoto, Shinya Kitagawa, Yoshinori Iiguni, Hajime Ohtani. Pyrolysis-GC–MS analysis of ingested polystyrene microsphere content in individual Daphnia magna. Science of The Total Environment 2022, 817 , 152981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.152981
  66. C.P. Rashid, R. Jyothibabu, N. Arunpandi, S. Santhikrishnan, V. Vidhya, S. Sarath, M. Arundhathy, K.T. Alok. Microplastics in copepods reflects the manmade flow restrictions in the Kochi backwaters, along the southwest coast of India. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2022, 177 , 113529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.113529
  67. Jie Yin, Juan-Ying Li, Nicholas J. Craig, Lei Su. Microplastic pollution in wild populations of decapod crustaceans: A review. Chemosphere 2022, 291 , 132985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.132985
  68. Ula Rozman, Gabriela Kalčíková. Seeking for a perfect (non-spherical) microplastic particle – The most comprehensive review on microplastic laboratory research. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2022, 424 , 127529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.127529
  69. Yuanze Sun, Chongxue Duan, Na Cao, Xinfei Li, Xiaomin Li, Yumei Chen, Yi Huang, Jie Wang. Effects of microplastics on soil microbiome: The impacts of polymer type, shape, and concentration. Science of The Total Environment 2022, 806 , 150516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150516
  70. Claudia Halsband. Effects of Biofouling on the Sinking Behavior of Microplastics in Aquatic Environments. 2022, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10618-8_12-1
  71. Claudia Halsband. Effects of Biofouling on the Sinking Behavior of Microplastics in Aquatic Environments. 2022, 563-575. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39041-9_12
  72. Giuseppe Bonanno. Fate, transport, and impact of microplastics on planktonic organisms. 2022, 75-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-822471-7.00009-2
  73. Jin Il Kwak, Huanliang Liu, Dayong Wang, Young Hwan Lee, Jae-Seong Lee, Youn-Joo An. Critical review of environmental impacts of microfibers in different environmental matrices. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part C: Toxicology & Pharmacology 2022, 251 , 109196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpc.2021.109196
  74. Giuseppe Esposito, Marino Prearo, Monia Renzi, Serena Anselmi, Alberto Cesarani, Damià Barcelò, Alessandro Dondo, Paolo Pastorino. Occurrence of microplastics in the gastrointestinal tract of benthic by–catches from an eastern Mediterranean deep–sea environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2022, 174 , 113231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.113231
  75. Ria Devereux, Mark G.J. Hartl, Mike Bell, Angela Capper. The abundance of microplastics in cnidaria and ctenophora in the North Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2021, 173 , 112992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112992
  76. Yu-Jhen Hsu, Wen-Pei Tsai, Wei-Chuan Chiang, Chih-Chi Huang, Hsiu-Wen Chien, Mengshan Lee. Incidence of plastic ingestion by the shortfin mako, Isurus oxyrinchus, off the northeast coast of Taiwan. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2021, 172 , 112820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112820
  77. Claudia Drago, Guntram Weithoff. Variable Fitness Response of Two Rotifer Species Exposed to Microplastics Particles: The Role of Food Quantity and Quality. Toxics 2021, 9 (11) , 305. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics9110305
  78. Jack Greenshields, Paula Schirrmacher, Jörg D. Hardege. Plastic additive oleamide elicits hyperactivity in hermit crabs. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2021, 169 , 112533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112533
  79. Zhuoan Bai, Nan Wang, Minghua Wang. Effects of microplastics on marine copepods. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 2021, 217 , 112243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2021.112243
  80. Ana I. Catarino, Johanna Kramm, Carolin Völker, Theodore B. Henry, Gert Everaert. Risk posed by microplastics: Scientific evidence and public perception. Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry 2021, 29 , 100467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsc.2021.100467
  81. Raísa da Silva Costa Rêgo, Caio Henrique Gonçalves Cutrim, Amanda Soares Miranda, Juliana Loureiro Almeida Campos, Vinícius Albano Araújo. Ethnozoology Mediating Knowledge About Sea Turtles and Environmental Education Strategies in the North-Central Coast of Rio De Janeiro, Brazil. Tropical Conservation Science 2021, 14 , 194008292110232. https://doi.org/10.1177/19400829211023265
  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Ingestion rates ± standard error (SE) (particles individual–1 h–1) of differently shaped microplastics including beads, fibers, and fragments for (a) C. helgolandicus, (b) H. gammarus, and (c) A. tonsa. The asterisks denote the level of significant difference in ingestion rates, *P ≤ 0.05, ** P ≤ 0.01. Illustrations by Vivienne Botterell.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. C. helgolandicus ingestion rates ± SE (particles copepod–1 h–1) of differently shaped microplastics: (a) beads, (b) fibers, and (c) fragments, with the different treatments of virgin, DMSP infused, DMS infused, DMSP noninfused, and DMS noninfused. The black significance bars relate to virgin controls and the gray significance bars relate to noninfused controls. The asterisks denote the levels of significant difference in the ingestion rates, *P ≤ 0.05, **P ≤ 0.01, ***P ≤ 0.001. Illustration by Vivienne Botterell.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. H. gammarus (larvae) ingestion rates ± SE (particles lobster–1 h–1) of the virgin, DMSP-infused, and DMS-infused microplastics for all three shapes: (a) beads, (b) fibers, and (c) fragments. The asterisks denote the levels of significant difference in the ingestion rates, *P ≤ 0.05, **P ≤ 0.01. Illustration by Vivienne Botterell.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. A. tonsa ingestion rates ± SE (particles copepod–1 h–1) of differently shaped microplastics: (a) beads, (b) fibers, and (c) fragments, with the different treatments of virgin, DMSP infused, DMS infused, DMSP noninfused, and DMS noninfused. The black significance bars relate to virgin controls and the gray significance bars relate to noninfused controls. The asterisks denote the levels of significant difference in the ingestion rates, *P ≤ 0.05, **P ≤ 0.01, ***P ≤ 0.001. Illustration by Vivienne Botterell.

  • References

    ARTICLE SECTIONS
    Jump To

    This article references 63 other publications.

    1. 1
      Thompson, R. C.; Olson, Y.; Mitchell, R. P.; Davis, A.; Rowland, S. J.; John, A. W. G.; McGonigle, D.; Russell, A. E. Lost at Sea: Where Is All the Plastic?. Science 2004, 304, 838,  DOI: 10.1126/science.1094559
    2. 2
      MSFD GES Technical Subgroup on Marine Litte. Marine Litter - technical recommendations for the implementation of MSFD requirements. UR—Scientific and Technical Research Series, 2011, 91p.
    3. 3
      Worm, B.; Lotze, H. K.; Jubinville, I.; Wilcox, C.; Jambeck, J. Plastic as a Persistent Marine Pollutant. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2017, 42, 126,  DOI: 10.1146/annurev-environ-102016-060700
    4. 4
      Duncan, E. M.; Botterell, Z. L. R.; Broderick, A. C.; Galloway, T. S.; Lindeque, P. K.; Nuno, A.; Godley, B. J. A global review of marine turtle entanglement in anthropogenic debris: a baseline for further action. Endanger Species Res. 2017, 34, 431448,  DOI: 10.3354/esr00865
    5. 5
      Laist, D. W. Impacts of Marine Debris: Entanglement of Marine Life in Marine Debris Including a Comprehensive List of Species with Entanglement and Ingestion Records. In Marine Debris, Springer: New York, NY, 1997, pp 99139.
    6. 6
      Baulch, S.; Perry, C. Evaluating the impacts of marine debris on cetaceans. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2014, 80, 210221,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.12.050
    7. 7
      Lavers, J. L.; Bond, A. L.; Hutton, I. Plastic ingestion by flesh-footed shearwaters (Puffinus carneipes): Implications for fledgling body condition and the accumulation of plastic-derived chemicals. Environ. Pollut. 2014, 187, 124129,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.12.020
    8. 8
      Botterell, Z. L. R.; Beaumont, N.; Dorrington, T.; Steinke, M.; Richard, C.; Lindeque, P. K. Bioavailability and effects of microplastics on marine zooplankton: a review. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 245, 98110,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.10.065
    9. 9
      Napper, I. E.; Thompson, R. C. Release of synthetic microplastic plastic fibres from domestic washing machines: Effects of fabric type and washing conditions. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 112, 3945,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.09.025
    10. 10
      Thompson, R. C. Sources, Distribution, and Fate of Microscopic Plastics in Marine Environments. In Hazardous Chemicals Associated with Plastics in the Marine Environment; Springer: Cham, 2019; Vol. 78, pp 121133.
    11. 11
      Barnes, D. K. A.; Galgani, F.; Thompson, R. C.; Barlaz, M. Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London 2009, 364, 19851998,  DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0205
    12. 12
      Galloway, T. S.; Cole, M.; Lewis, C. Interactions of microplastic debris throughout the marine ecosystem. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2017, 1, 18,  DOI: 10.1038/s41559-017-0116
    13. 13
      Besseling, E.; Foekema, E. M.; Van Franeker, J. A.; Leopold, M. F.; Kühn, S.; Bravo Rebolledo, E. L.; Heβe, E.; Mielke, L.; Ijzer, J.; Kamminga, P.; Koelmans, A. A. Microplastic in a macro filter feeder: Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 95, 248252,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.04.007
    14. 14
      Lusher, A. L.; Hernandez-Milian, G.; O’Brien, J.; Berrow, S.; O’Connor, I.; Officer, R. Microplastic and macroplastic ingestion by a deep diving, oceanic cetacean: The True’s beaked whale Mesoplodon mirus. Environ. Pollut. 2015, 199, 185191,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2015.01.023
    15. 15
      Amélineau, F.; Bonnet, D.; Heitz, O.; Mortreux, V.; Harding, A. M. A.; Karnovsky, N.; Walkusz, W.; Fort, J.; Gremillet, D. Microplastic pollution in the Greenland Sea: Background levels and selective contamination of planktivorous diving seabirds. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 219, 11311139,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.09.017
    16. 16
      Browne, M. A.; Dissanayake, A.; Galloway, T. S.; Lowe, D. M.; Thompson, R. C. Ingested Microscopic Plastic Translocates to the Circulatory System of the Mussel, Mytilus edulis (L.). Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 50265031,  DOI: 10.1021/es800249a
    17. 17
      Cole, M.; Lindeque, P. K.; Fileman, E.; Halsband, C.; Goodhead, R.; Moger, J.; Galloway, T. S. Microplastic ingestion by zooplankton. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 664655,  DOI: 10.1021/es400663f
    18. 18
      Desforges, J.-P. W.; Galbraith, M.; Ross, P. S. Ingestion of Microplastics by Zooplankton in the Northeast Pacific Ocean. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2015, 69, 32030,  DOI: 10.1007/s00244-015-0172-5
    19. 19
      Lee, K.; Shim, W. J.; Kwon, O. Y.; Kang, J. Size-Dependent Effects of Micro Polystyrene Particles in the Marine Copepod Tigriopus japonicus. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 1127811283,  DOI: 10.1021/es401932b
    20. 20
      Cole, M.; Lindeque, P.; Fileman, E.; Halsband, C.; Galloway, T. S. The impact of polystyrene microplastics on feeding, function and fecundity in the marine copepod Calanus helgolandicus. Environ Sci Technol. 2015, 49, 11307,  DOI: 10.1021/es504525u
    21. 21
      Lo, H. K. A.; Chan, K. Y. K. Negative effects of microplastic exposure on growth and development of Crepidula onyx. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 233, 588595,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.10.095
    22. 22
      Kiørboe, T. How zooplankton feed: Mechanisms, traits and trade-offs. Biol. Rev. 2011, 86, 31139,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2010.00148.x
    23. 23
      Worm, B.; Barbier, E. B.; Beaumont, N.; Duffy, J. E.; Folke, C.; Halpern, B. S.; Jackson, J. B. C.; Lotze, H. K.; Micheli, F.; Palumbi, S. R.; Sala, E.; Selkoe, K. A.; Stachowicz, J. J.; Watson, R. Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science 2006, 314, 787790,  DOI: 10.1126/science.1132294
    24. 24
      Vroom, R. J. E.; Koelmans, A. A.; Besseling, E.; Halsband, C. Aging of microplastics promotes their ingestion by marine zooplankton. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 231, 987996,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.088
    25. 25
      Steer, M.; Cole, M.; Thompson, R. C.; Lindeque, P. K. Microplastic ingestion in fish larvae in the western English Channel. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 226, 250259,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.03.062
    26. 26
      Sun, X.; Li, Q.; Zhu, M.; Liang, J.; Zheng, S.; Zhao, Y. Ingestion of microplastics by natural zooplankton groups in the northern South China Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 115, 21724,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.12.004
    27. 27
      Huntley, M. E.; Barthel, K. G.; Star, J. L. Particle rejection by Calanus pacificus: discrimination between similarly sized particles. Mar. Biol. 1983, 74, 15160,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00413918
    28. 28
      Coppock, R. L.; Galloway, T. S.; Cole, M.; Fileman, E. S.; Queirós, A. M.; Lindeque, P. K. Microplastics alter feeding selectivity and faecal density in the copepod, Calanus helgolandicus. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 687, 7809,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.009
    29. 29
      Wright, S. L.; Thompson, R. C.; Galloway, T. S. The physical impacts of microplastics on marine organisms: A review. Environ Pollut. 2013, 178, 483492,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.02.031
    30. 30
      Cole, M.; Galloway, T. S. Ingestion of Nanoplastics and Microplastics by Pacific Oyster Larvae. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 1462514632,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b04099
    31. 31
      Cole, M.; Coppock, R.; Lindeque, P. K.; Altin, D.; Reed, S.; Pond, D. W.; Sørensen, L.; Galloway, T. S.; Booth, A. M. Effects of Nylon Microplastic on Feeding, Lipid Accumulation, and Moulting in a Coldwater Copepod. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 70757082,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b01853
    32. 32
      Choi, J. S.; Jung, Y. J.; Hong, N. H.; Hong, S. H.; Park, J. W. Toxicological effects of irregularly shaped and spherical microplastics in a marine teleost, the sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 129, 231240,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.02.039
    33. 33
      Savoca, M. S.; Wohlfeil, M. E.; Ebeler, S. E.; Nevitt, G. A. Marine plastic debris emits a keystone infochemical for olfactory foraging seabirds. Sci. Adv. 2016, 2, e1600395  DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1600395
    34. 34
      Allen, A. S.; Seymour, A. C.; Rittschof, D. Chemoreception drives plastic consumption in a hard coral. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 124, 198205,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.07.030
    35. 35
      Procter, J.; Hopkins, F. E.; Fileman, E. S.; Lindeque, P. K. Smells good enough to eat: Dimethyl sulfide (DMS) enhances copepod ingestion of microplastics. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 138, 16,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.11.014
    36. 36
      Barnes, D. K. A. Biodiversity: Invasions by marine life on plastic debris. Nature 2002, 416, 808809,  DOI: 10.1038/416808a
    37. 37
      Lobelle, D.; Cunliffe, M. Early microbial biofilm formation on marine plastic debris. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62, 197200,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.10.013
    38. 38
      Zettler, E. R.; Mincer, T. J.; Amaral-Zettler, L. A. Life in the “plastisphere”: Microbial communities on plastic marine debris. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 71377146,  DOI: 10.1021/es401288x
    39. 39
      Yoch, D. C. Dimethylsulfoniopropionate: Its Sources, Role in the Marine Food Web, and Biological Degradation to Dimethylsulfide. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2002, 68, 58045815,  DOI: 10.1128/AEM.68.12.5804-5815.2002
    40. 40
      Pohnert, G.; Steinke, M.; Tollrian, R. Chemical cues, defence metabolites and the shaping of pelagic interspecific interactions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2007, 22, 198204,  DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2007.01.005
    41. 41
      Lana, A.; Bell, T. G.; Simó, R.; Vallina, S. M.; Ballabrera-Poy, J.; Kettle, A. J.; Dachs, J.; Bopp, L.; Saltzman, E. S.; Stefels, J.; Johnson, J. E.; Liss, P. S. An updated climatology of surface dimethlysulfide concentrations and emission fluxes in the global ocean. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 2011, 25, 117,  DOI: 10.1029/2010GB003850
    42. 42
      Endres, C. S.; Lohmann, K. J. Perception of dimethyl sulfide (DMS) by loggerhead sea turtles: A possible mechanism for locating high-productivity oceanic regions for foraging. J. Exp. Biol. 2012, 215, 35353538,  DOI: 10.1242/jeb.073221
    43. 43
      Steinke, M.; Stefels, J.; Stamhuis, E. Dimethyl sulfide triggers search behavior in copepods. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2006, 51, 19251930,  DOI: 10.4319/lo.2006.51.4.1925
    44. 44
      DeBose, J. L.; Nevitt, G. A.; Dittman, A. H. Rapid Communication: Experimental evidence that Juvenile Pelagic Jacks (Carangidae) respond behaviorally to DMSP. J. Chem. Ecol. 2010, 36, 3268,  DOI: 10.1007/s10886-010-9755-9
    45. 45
      DeBose, J. L.; Lema, S. C.; Nevitt, G. A. Dimethylsulfoniopropionate as a foraging cue for reef fishes. Science 2008, 319, 1356,  DOI: 10.1126/science.1151109
    46. 46
      Breckels, M. N.; Roberts, E. C.; Archer, S. D.; Malin, G.; Steinke, M. The role of dissolved infochemicals in mediating predator-prey interactions in the heterotrophic dinoflagellate Oxyrrhis marina. J. Plankton Res. 2011, 33, 629639,  DOI: 10.1093/plankt/fbq114
    47. 47
      Phuong, N. N.; Zalouk-Vergnoux, A.; Poirier, L.; Kamari, A.; Châtel, A.; Mouneyrac, C.; Al, E. Is there any consistency between the microplastics found in the field and those used in laboratory experiments?. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 211, 111123,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2015.12.035
    48. 48
      Cole, M. A novel method for preparing microplastic fibers. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 34519  DOI: 10.1038/srep34519
    49. 49
      Archer, S. D.; Cummings, D. G.; Llewellyn, C. A.; Fishwick, J. R. Phytoplankton taxa, irradiance and nutrient availability determine the seasonal cycle of DMSP in temperate shelf seas. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2009, 394, 111124,  DOI: 10.3354/meps08284
    50. 50
      Frost, B. W. Effects of size and concentration of food particles on the feeding behaviour of the marine planktonic copepod Calanus pacificus. Limnol. Oceanogr. 1972, 17, 805815,  DOI: 10.4319/lo.1972.17.6.0805
    51. 51
      Syberg, K.; Nielsen, A.; Khan, F. R.; Banta, G. T.; Palmqvist, A.; Jepsen, P. M. Microplastic potentiates triclosan toxicity to the marine copepod Acartia tonsa (Dana). J. Toxicol. Environ. Health, Part A 2017, 80, 136971,  DOI: 10.1080/15287394.2017.1385046
    52. 52
      Cannon, B. Y. H. G. On the feeding mechanism of the copepod, Calanus finmarchicus and Diaptomus gracilis. J. Exp. Biol. 1928, 6, 13144
    53. 53
      Paffenhöfer, G.-A.; Strickler, J. R.; Alcaraz, M. Suspension-feeding by herbivorous calanoid copepods: A cinematographic study. Mar. Biol. 1982, 67, 193199,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00401285
    54. 54
      Donaghay, P. L.; Small, L. F. Food selection capabilities of the estuarine copepod Acartia clausi. Mar. Biol. 1979, 52, 137146,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00390421
    55. 55
      Saiz, E.; Kiorboe, T. Predatory and suspension feeding of the copepod Acartia tonsa in turbulent environments. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 1995, 122, 147158,  DOI: 10.3354/meps122147
    56. 56
      Juinio, M. A. R.; Cobb, J. S. Natural diet and feeding habits of the postlarval lobster Homarus americanus. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 1992, 85, 8391,  DOI: 10.3354/meps085083
    57. 57
      Stearns, D. E.; Forward, R. B. Photosensitivity of the calanoid copepod Acartia tonsa. Mar. Biol. 1988, 253, 247253,  DOI: 10.1007/bf00392766
    58. 58
      Meyer-Rochow, V. B. Larval and adult eye of the Western Rock Lobster (Panulirus longipes). Cell Tissue Res. 1975, 162, 43957,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00209345
    59. 59
      Setälä, O.; Fleming-Lehtinen, V.; Lehtiniemi, M. Ingestion and transfer of microplastics in the planktonic food web. Environ. Pollut. 2014, 185, 7783,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.10.013
    60. 60
      Amaral-Zettler, L. A.; Zettler, E. R.; Mincer, T. J. Ecology of the plastisphere. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2020, 18, 139151,  DOI: 10.1038/s41579-019-0308-0
    61. 61
      Pinto, M.; Langer, T. M.; Huffer, T.; Hofmann, T.; Herndl, G. J. The composition of bacterial communities associated with plastic biofilms differs between different polymers and stages of biofilm succession. PLoS One 2019, 14, e0217165  DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217165
    62. 62
      Enders, K.; Lenz, R.; Stedmon, C. A.; Nielsen, T. G. Abundance, size and polymer composition of marine microplastics ≥10 μm in the Atlantic Ocean and their modelled vertical distribution. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 100, 7081,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.09.027
    63. 63
      Lindeque, P. K.; Cole, M.; Coppock, R. L.; Lewis, C. N.; Miller, R. Z.; Watts, A. J. R.; Wilson-McNeal, A.; Wright, S. L.; Galloway, T. S. Are we underestimating microplastic abundance in the marine environment? A comparison of microplastic capture with nets of. Environ Pollut. 2020, 265, 114721  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114721
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information

    ARTICLE SECTIONS
    Jump To

    The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.0c02715.

    • Images of the microplastics and microplastic concentration data at T0, T3, and T6 (PDF)


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

You’ve supercharged your research process with ACS and Mendeley!

STEP 1:
Click to create an ACS ID

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

MENDELEY PAIRING EXPIRED
Your Mendeley pairing has expired. Please reconnect