ライフサイエンスコーパス: microplastic

1 for other anthropogenic particulates (e.g., microplastics).

2 rganisms and pathogens were more abundant on microplastic.

3 eatment plant effluent was a point source of microplastic.

4 estimated a minimum of 21,290 t of floating microplastic.

5 s from laboratory bioassays with polystyrene microplastic.

6 ting the effect of biofouling on the fate of microplastic.

7 extent that diverse organisms are ingesting microplastics.

8 4.75 mm in diameter and therefore considered microplastics.

9 zooplankton, including copepods, can ingest microplastics.

10 stinguish between food with and food without microplastics.

11 , copepods egested faecal pellets laden with microplastics.

12 , filtration, sieving, and visual sorting of microplastics.

13 d more oligochaetes in treatments exposed to microplastics.

14 e benthic assemblages would be influenced by microplastics.

15 sis were over an order of magnitude lower on microplastics.

16 Microscopic plastic (microplastic, 0.1 microm-5 mm) is a widespread pollutant

17 Following exposure to 20.6 mum polystyrene microplastics (1000 microplastics mL(-1)) and natural pr

18 faecal pellets are a vector for transport of microplastics, (2) polystyrene microplastics can alter t

19 oist soil containing 0.35 wt % of Zn-bearing microplastic (236-4505 mg kg(-1)) ingested the microplas

20 ic earthworm guts desorption was higher from microplastics (40-60%) than soil (2-15%), suggesting mic

21 indicate the wide spread of high numbers of microplastics (42-6595 microplastics kg(-1)).

22 which allow the spatiotemporal comparison of microplastic abundance across marine environments.

23 A positive correlation between microplastic abundance and chlorophyll a content suggest

24 A significant proportion of the microplastic accumulated in and was removed during the g

25 We further observed microplastics adhered to the external carapace and appen

26 The global estimation of microplastic afloat in the ocean is only approximately 1

27 as manta trawls underestimate total buoyant microplastic amounts by a factor of 1.04-30.0 and (2) es

28 Consequently, microplastic amounts can be underestimated, as turbulenc

29 ndings indicate that large concentrations of microplastic and additives can harm ecophysiological fun

30 The presence of microplastic and carbon-based nanoparticles in the envir

31 e, however, reduced by biological fouling of microplastic and in the presence of phytoplankton food.

32 not distinguish between algae with adherent microplastics and clean algae without microplastics, ind

33 y little is known about interactions between microplastics and common terrestrial contaminants such a

34 ween low-volatility environmental toxins and microplastics and hold potential to correlate the enviro

35 Although microplastics and human health is an emerging field, com

36 aluate the potential human health impacts of microplastics and outlines urgent areas for future resea

37 Desorption of the Zn was minimal from both microplastics and soil in synthetic soil solution (0.01

38 orroborates the deep sea as a major sink for microplastics and the presence of accumulation areas in

39 Galloway and Lewis discuss marine microplastics and their devastating effects on ocean eco

40 hich change the overall partitioning between microplastics and water.

41 ing pollution of inland river sediments with microplastics and, as a consequence thereof, underlines

42 Of growing environmental concern are "microplastics"and "nanoplastics" encompassing tiny parti

43 eased when exposed to 2.5 or 25 mug L(-1) of microplastics, and porewater ammonium and biomass of ben

44 Microplastics are a novel substrate for the adherence of

45 Microplastics are a pollutant of environmental concern.

46 his study we present the first evidence that microplastics are already becoming integrated into deep-

47 Here, we show that microplastics are ingested by, and may impact upon, zoop

48 thin 5 m depth, indicating that most buoyant microplastics are present on or near the surface.

49 We provide proof of principle that microplastics are taken up into cells and cause signific

50 Microplastics are widely dispersed throughout the marine

51 Microplastics are widespread contaminants in terrestrial

52 Small plastic detritus, termed "microplastics", are a widespread and ubiquitous contamin

53 Microscopic plastic debris, termed "microplastics", are of increasing environmental concern.

54 shown that <5 mm plastic particles, known as microplastics, are significantly more abundant in surfac

55 members, raising questions about the role of microplastics as a novel ecological niche for potentiall

56 he feces contained the same concentration of microplastics as the food which indicates that no accumu

57 d microplastics were classified as secondary microplastics as they appear to be remnants of larger it

58 Our results indicate that microplastics, as administered in the experiments, do no

59 es a better understanding of the behavior of microplastic at sea.

60 opulation equivalent 650000) was sampled for microplastics at different stages of the treatment proce

61 oral assessment of microbial colonization on microplastics at sea using imaging and omics approaches

62 response of C. dubia to a binary mixture of microplastic beads and fibers for the first time.

63 much of the current research has focused on microplastic beads, our study shows that microplastic fi

64 e volume of effluent even a modest amount of microplastics being released per liter of effluent could

65 e of assessing exposure through all media in microplastic bioaccumulation studies.

66 e removal: the formation of a biofilm on the microplastics (biofouling).

67 benthic freshwater fish species, revealing a microplastic burden comparable to that indicated in the

68 croplastic (236-4505 mg kg(-1)) ingested the microplastics, but there was no evidence of Zn accumulat

69 en exposed to 25 mug L(-1) of either type of microplastics, but there were no effects on ecosystem fu

70 The ingestion of microplastics by freshwater invertebrates has not been r

71 Ingestion of microplastics by marine biota, including mussels, worms,

72 a step change in the ability to detect small microplastics by substituting the subjectivity of human

73 transport of microplastics, (2) polystyrene microplastics can alter the properties and sinking rates

74 Microplastics can be ingested by organisms leading to ne

75 Here we demonstrate that ingestion of microplastics can significantly alter the feeding capaci

76 Microplastics collected at sea harbor a high diversity o

77 e further indicated to better understand the microplastics colonization dynamics and species assembla

78 e the extent of the physiological effects of microplastics compared to the physiological resilience o

79 significantly reduced at 28, 45, and 60% w/w microplastics, compared to the 7% and control treatments

80 cm sediment depth, with the area of highest microplastic concentration being the water-sediment inte

81 A positive relation was observed between microplastic concentration in the sediment and both upta

82 The current study tested the hypotheses that microplastics concentration would be higher in proximity

83 On highly impacted beaches, microplastic concentrations (<1mm) can reach 3% by weigh

84 Microplastic concentrations decreased exponentially with

85 The host sediments had microplastic concentrations ranging from 56 to 2543 part

86 bly resulted in an underestimation of actual microplastic concentrations.

87 The greatest microplastics concentrations also occurred at three of f

88 eks showed no distinct effects of continuous microplastic consumption on mortality, growth, and inter

89 As global microplastic contamination accelerates, our findings ind

90 These findings demonstrate that microplastic contamination is ubiquitous within superfic

91 Microplastic contamination of the aquatic environment is

92 These findings indicate that microplastics could act as vectors to increase metal exp

93 stics (40-60%) than soil (2-15%), suggesting microplastics could increase Zn bioavailability.

94 Our findings imply that marine microplastic debris can negatively impact upon zooplankt

95 of the biological and ecological effects of microplastic debris in the environment.

96 rich seawater samples without destroying any microplastic debris present.

97 enzymatic digestion can aid the detection of microplastic debris within seawater samples and marine b

98 irst study to describe in detail the fate of microplastics during the wastewater treatment process.

99 We further show that microplastics, encapsulated within egests of the copepod

100 further research into the pathways by which microplastics enter the environment.

101 luent could result in significant amounts of microplastics entering the environment.

102 ptual energetic (carbon) budget showing that microplastic-exposed copepods suffer energetic depletion

103 Thus, microplastic exposure via diet or inhalation could occur

104 challenged crabs with reduced salinity after microplastic exposure.

105 d with detergent, respectively), the overall microplastic fiber length profile remained similar regar

106 chanisms of fiber shedding in the context of microplastic fiber release into laundry wash water.

107 However, microplastic fibers are rarely used in laboratory studie

108 he incorporation of environmentally relevant microplastic fibers into future studies, new methods are

109 Microplastic fibers make up a large proportion of microp

110 on microplastic beads, our study shows that microplastic fibers pose a greater risk to C. dubia, wit

111 titative data regarding the size and mass of microplastic fibers released from synthetic (polyester)

112 Microplastic fibers were prepared to specified lengths (

113 onsider synthetic textiles a major source of microplastic fibers, and it will not diminish since the

114 ased predictions on the limited relevance of microplastic for bioaccumulation under environmentally r

115 tural prey overwhelms the flux from ingested microplastic for most habitats, which implies that micro

116 We also show that Tubifex worms retain microplastics for longer than they retain other particul

117 a start for predicting risks of exposure to microplastics for potentially vulnerable species living

118 plastic fibers make up a large proportion of microplastics found in the environment, especially in ur

119 In order to better understand microplastic fragmentation we proceeded to a thorough ph

120 mum in length), while the remaining 13% were microplastic fragments (50-4500 mum in length).

121 nsity polyethylene (HDPE) particles, a model microplastic free of additives, ranging > 0-80 mum are i

122 for the identification and quantification of microplastics from the marine environment.

123 weeds may represent an efficient pathway for microplastics from the water to marine benthic herbivore

124 nd without microplastics showed that 7.3 mum microplastics (>4000 mL(-1)) significantly decreased alg

125 Whereas 50 percent of the microplastics had a size of <50 mum in the original litt

126 food which indicates that no accumulation of microplastics happens during the gut passage.

127 Oral ingestion of microplastics has been reported for a wide range of mari

128 The ingestion of microplastics has been shown for a great variety of mari

129 While the effects of ingesting microplastic have been explored for some adult organisms

130 Besides natural particles, microplastics have raised public concern.

131 mpacted regions of the world with regards to microplastics, however the polymeric composition of thes

132 gic zooplankton are susceptible to consuming microplastics, however the threat posed to larvae of com

133 face tows show a power-law increase in small microplastics (i.e., <1 mm) with a decreasing particle s

134 ost studies reported two main size ranges of microplastics: (i) 500 mum-5 mm, which are retained by a

135 We conclude that microplastics impede feeding in copepods, which over tim

136 h mounting evidence suggests the ubiquity of microplastic in aquatic ecosystems worldwide, our knowle

137 These results demonstrate that microplastic in rivers are a distinct microbial habitat

138 ne habitats and the Great Lakes, but data on microplastic in rivers is limited.

139 , we studied the effect of polyethylene (PE) microplastic in sediment on PCB uptake by Arenicola mari

140 important implications for fate and risk of microplastic in terrestrial ecosystems.

141 The amount of nano- and microplastic in the aquatic environment rises due to the

142 ple analytical method for quantifying common microplastics in a range of environmental samples.

143 cument ingestion, egestion, and adherence of microplastics in a range of zooplankton common to the no

144 We embedded fluorescent microplastics in artificial agarose-based food and offer

145 e body of information currently available on microplastics in different environmental compartments, i

146 A new approach is presented for analysis of microplastics in environmental samples, based on selecti

147 etermining the concentration and identity of microplastics in environmental samples.

148 extraction (PFE) was developed for measuring microplastics in environmental samples.

149 The limited data on microplastics in foods do not predict adverse effect of

150 mug L(-1)) of biodegradable or conventional microplastics in outdoor mesocosms.

151 Developing methods to accurately quantify microplastics in productive marine waters, and those int

152 though efficient methods for the analysis of microplastics in sediment samples and marine organisms h

153 s of low-volatility lake ecosystem toxins on microplastics in situ and in real time.

154 um in the original litter, 90 percent of the microplastics in the casts was <50 mum in all treatments

155 Nevertheless, quantification of microplastics in the environment is hampered by a lack o

156 Microplastics in the fecal pellets of the periwinkles in

157 g an efficient method to detect and quantify microplastics in the gastrointestinal tract of fishes.

158 ter 60 days was higher at 28, 45, and 60% of microplastics in the litter than at 7% w/w and in the co

159 Most studies on buoyant microplastics in the marine environment rely on sea surf

160 Much of the recent concern has focused on microplastics in the marine environment.

161 measurements of the depth profile of buoyant microplastics in the North Atlantic subtropical gyre, fr

162 transformation, fragmentation, and fates of microplastics in the ocean.

163 e earthworms showed that they did not retain microplastics in their gut.

164 water treatment facilities, the abundance of microplastics in these matrices has not been investigate

165 This method for identifying and quantifying microplastics in wastewater is likely to provide an esse

166 dress this, a new method for the analysis of microplastics in wastewater was developed.

167 t the abundance of micrometer-sized plastic (microplastic) in habitats has increased [3] and outnumbe

168 It has been hypothesized that ingestion of microplastic increases exposure of aquatic organisms to

169 herent microplastics and clean algae without microplastics, indicating that the snails do not recogni

170 The protocol was further used to extract microplastics ingested by marine zooplankton under labor

171 Microplastic ingestion by Tubifex worms poses a signific

172 ing paradigm that a key biological impact of microplastic ingestion is a reduction in energy budgets

173 lastic for most habitats, which implies that microplastic ingestion is not likely to increase the exp

174 here is poor understanding of the effects of microplastic ingestion on marine larvae.

175 Microplastic interacts with biota, including microorgani

176 ombination of fast nano-fragmentation of the microplastic into particles of microns or smaller, their

177 identify ventilation as a route of uptake of microplastics into a common marine nonfilter feeding spe

178 bris suggested that continued fragmenting of microplastics into nanosized particles may occur.

179 ortance of rivers as vectors of transport of microplastics into the ocean.

180 ulate that this WwTW is releasing 65 million microplastics into the receiving water every day.

181 thod to identify the chemical composition of microplastics is by infrared spectroscopy.

182 Microscopic plastic litter (<5 mm diameter; 'microplastic') is increasing in abundance in the marine

183 here is no standardized method for analyzing microplastics isolated from environmental samples.

184 ad of high numbers of microplastics (42-6595 microplastics kg(-1)).

185 entially significant component of the global microplastic life cycle.

186 Microplastic litter is a pervasive pollutant present in

187 e is increasing concern about the impacts of microplastics (<1 mm) on marine biota.

188 Microplastics (<5 mm) have been documented in environmen

189 plankton readily ingest microscopic plastic (microplastic, < 1 mm), which are later egested within th

190 Microscopic plastic debris (microplastics, <5 mm in diameter) is ubiquitous in the m

191 western English Channel, we identified 0.27 microplastics m(-3).

192 that persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in microplastic may pose a risk to aquatic organisms.

193 If inhaled or ingested, microplastics may accumulate and exert localized particl

194 Previous work has shown that microplastics may be ingested and inhaled by the shore c

195 Microplastics may be mistaken for food items and ingeste

196 It has been speculated that marine microplastics may cause negative effects on benthic mari

197 can address some limitations of the current microplastic methods and provide laboratories with a sim

198 Exposed to 20 mum polystyrene beads (75 microplastics mL(-1)) and cultured algae ([250 mug C L(-

199 to 20.6 mum polystyrene microplastics (1000 microplastics mL(-1)) and natural prey ( approximately 1

200 effect on C. gigas feeding or growth at <100 microplastics mL(-1).

201 Microplastic (MP) particles are derived from the breakdo

202 The content of microplastics (MP) in the environment is constantly grow

203 suspected to be a significant contributor of microplastics (MP) to the environment as many personal c

204 Microplastics (MPs) are a significant environmental heal

205 are receptors for the cumulative loading of microplastics (MPs) derived from industry, landfill, dom

206 Microplastics (MPs) have been identified as contaminants

207 The occurrence of microplastics (MPs) in saltwater bodies is relatively we

208 eliable identification and quantification of microplastics (MPs) in the lower micron range.

209 Further scenarios include polyethylene microplastic, nanosized plastic, and open marine systems

210 Microplastics of different sizes could be detected and c

211 Microplastics of less than 1 mm can be ingested by small

212 The effects of polystyrene (PS) microplastic on survival, activity, and bodyweight, as w

213 The effects of microplastics on faecal pellet properties are currently

214 seaweed Fucus vesiculosus retains suspended microplastics on its surface.

215 surface properties, and tested the impact of microplastics on larval feeding and growth.

216 , especially for unraveling the influence of microplastics on our health and environment.

217 vironment, but information on the effects of microplastics on terrestrial fauna is completely lacking

218 Biological effects of microplastics on the health of bivalves have been demons

219 disregarded in studies about the effects of microplastics on the marine biota, probably because the

220 ical role in marine food-webs, the impact of microplastics on zooplankton remains under-researched.

221 g a manta net to capture appropriately sized microplastics (operationally defined as 0.3-5.0 mm).

222 Recent research has documented microplastic particles (< 5 mm in diameter) in ocean hab

223 All sediments analyzed contained microplastic particles (<5 mm) with mass fractions of up

224 ection and automated quantification of small microplastic particles (20-1000 mum) using the dye Nile

225 Microplastic particles (MPPs; <5 mm) are found in skin c

226 Here we demonstrate the ingestion of microplastic particles by Tubifex tubifex from bottom se

227 el simulates the vertical transport of small microplastic particles over time, and predicts that the

228 redicted size-dependent vertical movement of microplastic particles results in a maximum concentratio

229 87% of the Tubifex-ingested microplastic particles were microfibers (55-4100 mum in

230 Potential toxic effects of microplastic particles will be confined to the gut.

231 osing important information or even damaging microplastic particles.

232 Plastic debris loads, both microplastic (particles <5 mm) and macroplastic (particl

233 ng the adverse effects of wastewater-derived microplastics, particularly fibers, on aquatic biota.

234 Microplastics, plastics particles <5 mm in length, are a

235 er items; fibres being the principal form of microplastic pollution (85%), followed by broken fragmen

236 The rising evidence of microplastic pollution impacts on aquatic organisms in b

237 gislation and how it relates to the issue of microplastic pollution in general, and we suggest a fram

238 these results suggest that current levels of microplastic pollution in the oceans only pose a limited

239 hat will eliminate one preventable source of microplastic pollution in the United States.

240 he acute (48 h) and chronic (8 d) effects of microplastic polyester fibers and polyethylene (PE) bead

241 estris (Oligochaeta, Lumbricidae) exposed to microplastics (Polyethylene, <150 mum) in litter at conc

242 ial from marine surface trawls to reveal any microplastics present.

243 we used fluorescent and pristine polystyrene microplastics (PS-MPs) particles with two diameters (5 m

244 The microplastic quantities are among the highest recorded f

245 This method yielded a microplastic recovery rate of >/=95%, and all tested pol

246 of detergent did not significantly influence microplastic release.

247 unoff and weathering breakdown of macro- and microplastics, represents an emerging concern for marine

248 more and smaller plastics particles, termed microplastics, reside in the environment and are now a c

249 can be assumed to be at equilibrium for most microplastic residing in the oceans.

250 marine organisms have the capacity to ingest microplastics, resulting in adverse health effects.

251 Density separation by MicroPlastic Sediment Separator and treatment with Fento

252 atural assemblages of algae with and without microplastics showed that 7.3 mum microplastics (>4000 m

253 Prolonged exposure to polystyrene microplastics significantly decreased reproductive outpu

254 Microplastic-spiked wastewater samples were used to vali

255 Lastly, nanograms of NP remained on microplastic surfaces hours after initial NP introductio

256 Illinois, USA, we measured concentrations of microplastic that met or exceeded those measured in ocea

257 lugworms (Arenicola marina) to sand with 5% microplastic that was presorbed with pollutants (nonylph

258 The numbers of microplastics that adhered to the algae correlated with

259 ppropriate standard for environmentally safe microplastics, the bill banned all plastic microbeads in

260 gmentation: we hypothesized that the smaller microplastics, the cubic ones mostly, are fragmented muc

261 the shore crab (Carcinus maenas) can take up microplastics through inspiration across the gills as we

262 Rivers may transport microplastic to marine habitats and the Great Lakes, but

263 istency among (a) measured HOC transfer from microplastic to organisms in the laboratory, (b) measure

264 Although there is potential for microplastics to impact human health, assessing current

265 These findings highlight the potential of microplastics to impact the functioning and structure of

266 rine biota, probably because the pathway for microplastics to this functional group of organisms was

267 iomarkers and polarized light microscopy for microplastic tracking in tissue.

268 Microplastic transferred pollutants and additive chemica

269 ded to understand the mechanisms influencing microplastic transport, deposition, resuspension and sub

270 to successfully image and identify different microplastic types (polyethylene, polypropylene, nylon-6

271 for trophic transfer and biomagnification of microplastics up the aquatic food chain.

272 Microplastic uptake into the gills and digestive gland w

273 monly used methods for the identification of microplastics (using type, shape, degradation stage, and

274 to the digestion of ingested organic matter, microplastic was concentrated in cast, especially at the

275 The mean concentration of ingested microplastics was 129 +/- 65.4 particles g(-1) tissue.

276 We show that HOC microplastic-water partitioning can be assumed to be at

277 Almost 80% of the microplastics were </=25 mum.

278 Microplastics were absent in one brand while others cont

279 All recovered microplastics were classified as secondary microplastics

280 Microplastics were found in all but one of 60 samples, w

281 However, no microplastics were found in the midgut gland, which is t

282 les that were feeding on contaminated algae, microplastics were found in the stomach and in the gut.

283 97% of recovered microplastics were found to reside shallower than 2.5 cm

284 Microplastics were not found deeper than 3.5 +/- 0.5 cm.

285 Upon ingestion, the microplastics were present in the stomach and in the gut

286 Sixty-two microplastics were recovered from 10 of 11 stations usin

287 Microplastics were separated into size classes (0.5-1.5

288 materials degrade to micron-sized particles (microplastics), which are persistent in the environment

289 nd describe similarities of FT-IR spectra of microplastics, which may improve further research studie

290 The hypothesis that 'microplastic will transfer hazardous hydrophobic organic

291 One key step studying interactions of microplastics with our ecological system is to identify

292 y searching algorithms to 96% by identifying microplastics with our new method.

293 nt method for preparing standardised fibrous microplastics, with widths similar to those observed in

294 showed that bacterial assemblages colonizing microplastic within the river were less diverse and were

295 -5 cm deep to quantify the standing stock of microplastics within marine sediments.

296 investigated chemical transfer from ingested microplastic without taking other exposure pathways into

297 identify heavily weathered and contaminated microplastics without any cleaning.