The Good, the Bad and the really ugly of Plastics: Part 2
How this versatile material is impacting human and environmental health.
Blog Post by Hayley Charlton-Howard
In our previous blog post, Brittnee discussed how hidden, tiny pieces of plastic have made their way into the products we use and consume every day. We know that plastic waste can be found nearly everywhere in the environment, but how bad is this problem?
Plastic found at the deepest point of the ocean, the Mariana Trench.
Photo: JAMSTEC
Plastic is becoming what is considered a ‘ubiquitous pollutant’, meaning that it can be found in almost every environment on Earth. It has been found in air (1), water (2) and soil (3), from the heights of Mt Everest (4) to the depths of the Mariana Trench (5), and even in ‘pristine’ Arctic and Antarctic ice (6).
Sadly, plastics have also made their way into many different species of wildlife. Some of the first records of plastic ingestion came from Laysan Albatross more than 50 years ago. Since then, over 1,200 marine species have been found to ingest plastic pollution (7), including fish (8), marine mammals (9), seabirds (10), marine invertebrates (11) and marine reptiles (12) – even tiny zooplankton (13). As part of our own environment, humans are not immune to plastic ingestion either, with plastic being documented in our own tissues (14) and blood (15). We are even passing this plastic on to the next generation, with plastic also being found in human breast milk (16) and placentas (17)!
All of this can be quite concerning, but it’s important to understand the science behind why plastic ingestion is so alarming, so that we can take informed and meaningful action to address the plastic pollution crisis.
Firstly, why do marine animals eat plastic?
There are many reasons why plastic might be ingested. For marine animals in particular, since the ocean is so vast, food can be difficult to find. To survive, many of these species have developed systems to allow them to successfully detect cues for food that might be a huge distance away, particularly a highly developed sense of smell. One of these important ‘food’ smells is called dimethyl sulphide (DMS), which is produced by marine microorganisms such as phytoplankton. A high concentration of DMS in one area could indicate phytoplankton blooms, which can in turn attract fish and become a major feeding opportunity. DMS has been found to act as a feeding signal for many different types of animals, from tiny copepods (19), to seabirds (20), seals (21), and sharks (22). Sadly, some plastics can acquire a DMS ‘signature’ within a month of floating in seawater (23), as DMS-producing microbes coat the surface. This means that plastic can begin to smell like food, which leads to animals mistaking plastic fragments for prey.
Plastics can also look like food! Consider the difference between a piece of cuttlefish bone, compared to a rough piece of polystyrene washed up on the beach. Since plastics can come in a variety of shapes and colours, they may start to resemble natural food items, such as small invertebrates, fish eggs, parts of crustaceans, jellyfish, or fragments of cephalopods (like squid or cuttlefish). Coupled with scent cues, it may be incredibly difficult for animals to distinguish between plastic and food items.
How biomagnification works: microscopic fragments of plastics can be taken up by tiny organisms, which are eaten by larger predators, such as fish. At each stage of the food web, these plastics are passed on, and ‘magnify’ the closer you become to a top-order predator.
Photo: MMF Graphics Team
Some animals may not ‘choose’ to eat plastic at all! In the case of filter feeders, such as baleen whales, manta rays, whale sharks, or shellfish, plastic may be ingested accidentally alongside tiny prey, since these animals don’t have the ability to selectively filter out plastics from a mouthful of seawater and food. For species like seabirds, chicks have no choice but to be fed plastic by their parents, which can limit their growth and sadly impact their chances of survival (25).
Additionally, predators higher up the food chain may also ingest plastic via biomagnification; where they eat prey that has consumed plastic. If animals eat plastic at each level of the food chain, that plastic content magnifies in number as you go further and further up. This is likely how humans are ingesting some plastics - when eating seafood, you’re also consuming some of the plastic that seafood ate while it was still alive!
Why animals ingest plastic may also be affected by other factors, such as the prevalence of plastic within their environment, availability of food, or individual levels of hunger.
Why can eating plastic be so harmful to wildlife?
There are many reasons why plastic ingestion can be harmful, both visible and hidden. The most obvious reasons can be sadly quite graphic; ingestion of plastic can lead to starvation and death. If the stomach cannot contract because it is so full of plastic, then food cannot be digested properly, and the animal may feel full when it’s actually severely malnourished (26). Even if the individual survives, ingestion of plastic can cause damage to the digestive tract and limit the amount of nutrients that can be obtained, impacting growth and overall health (27).
Plastic itself can also be quite toxic. When it is being manufactured, chemical additives or metals are often incorporated into the plastic to make it more resistant, give it colour, or make it flexible. However, when ingested by wildlife, these chemicals may also negatively affect health (28). Some of these additives are considered heavy metals, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), persistent organic pollutants (POPs), or endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), which have all been linked to changes in development, reproductive success, and overall health (28,29). It is important to note that many of these impacts are still being studied!
Once in the stomach, bigger plastic fragments can also be broken down into micro- and nanoplastics (as a quick refresher, microplastics are 1 micrometre to 5 millimetres, while nanoplastics are 1 micrometre or smaller – human cells are on average about 100 micrometres on average). Due to their small size, these plastics can be actually absorbed by the digestive system and make their way into the bloodstream (30)! Once in the blood, they can be transported around the body, and in laboratory studies have been found to accumulate in many major organs such as the liver, kidneys, brain and heart (31–34).
From there, these plastics can cause a lot of damage. A few of the documented impacts include:
Brain damage (33)
Changes to gut microbiota (35)
Behavioural disorders (36) and metabolic disorders (37)
Increased haemolysis - the bursting of blood cells (38)
Disrupted circadian rhythm (39) Reduced growth (40)
Decreased fecundity/fertility (41)
Changes to gene expression (42)
Decreased muscle generation (43)
Decreased heart rate, body length, and hatching rate of young (44)
Tissue damage and inflammation (45)
Assessing the impacts of plastic on health is a very emerging field of study, with new impacts found every month.
While I have been working with the Marine Mammal Foundation, I have also been completing an Honours research project with the Adrift Lab - an international, interdisciplinary scientific team studying the impacts of plastic on seabirds and the wider environment. As a part of this research, we documented and described ‘Plasticosis’ - a new disease where plastic ingestion causes severe and widespread fibrosis in the stomachs of Flesh-footed Shearwaters from Lord Howe Island, Australia.
Scarring is a natural part of the healing process after tissue inflammation or injury, with its main function being to provide support to damaged tissue while being repaired. However, extensive and unchecked scar tissue formation can become fibrosis, which can impede organ function.
In the case of plasticosis, since plastic fragments are often sharp and brittle, they can cause repeated injury to soft tissues such as the stomach. Scar tissue is then formed at the injury site to help with the healing process. However, since the amount of ingested plastic is so high (one of the birds in our study had sadly ingested over 200 pieces of plastic, while another had eaten roughly 10% of its body weight in plastic), scar tissue formation can become so severe that major sections of the organ become damaged and fibrotic.
Initially with this study, our aim was to report on any plastic-induced scar tissue formation within the tissues. We were examining samples from the proventriculus (stomach) of these seabirds since it was likely to be the most impacted organ, and quantified scar tissue formation a Masson’s Trichrome staining technique. Through this process, we applied a series of stains to slides of tissue, and each of these stains binds to particular chemicals. Importantly in this case, collagen (a main component of scar tissue) stained bright blue. Through histopathological examination under a microscope, we were able to identify areas of collagen and scar tissue, and look for any tissue damage.
It was only once we had seen the severity and extent of the scarring, and how consistent the pathology was, that we considered proposing the disease plasticosis. We decided to keep the name in line with other fibrotic diseases such as silicosis and asbestosis, where fibrosis is widespread and causes organ damage, but instead of silica dust or asbestos, the irritant was plastic. As far as we know, this is the first fibrotic disease to be classified as a result of plastic ingestion in wild animals.
There are many ways that plasticosis may affect health. Firstly, scar tissue doesn’t function like healthy tissue – it mainly provides support – but that means that scar tissue can be inflexible. In an organ such as the stomach, where flexibility is crucial in allowing it to expand and contract to digest food, this can mean that organ function is impaired as a result. Secondly, we found that the plastic also caused serious damage to the digestive glands within the stomach, which are responsible for producing digestive fluids. These fluids help break down food, allow for nutrients to be absorbed, and prevent parasites and infection. The damage caused by plastic may mean that the birds’ ability to maintain their gastric health and digest food efficiently may be impaired.
While not immediately fatal, all of these smaller, sub-lethal impacts may cumulatively mean that birds are unfortunately less likely to survive.
Plasticosis was first described in Flesh-footed Shearwaters from Lord Howe Island, Australia
Photo: Jennifer Lavers
A highly impacted shearwater fledgling, roughly 90 days old.
Photo: Silke Stuckenbrock
What plasticosis looks like under a microscope, with healthy tissue on the left, and fibrotic, plasticosis-affected tissue on the right. Collagen is stained blue using a Masson’s Trichrome to assess the level of scar tissue present in each sample.
Photo: Hayley Charlton-Howard
Is there a possibility of this impacting humans/other animals?
Flesh-footed Shearwaters as a species are known to be highly affected by plastic pollution, but as mentioned before, there many species that ingest plastic that have not been assessed for scar tissue formation. In this study, Flesh-footed Shearwaters were acting as really important indicator species to illustrate what could be happening in other wildlife. In terms of plasticosis affecting us as humans, thankfully the size of the plastics we’re eating are much smaller than the ones we assessed in this study, and are not likely to cause damage to the severity seen here. However, we still do not know much about how plastics are affecting our bodies, and much more research is needed.
So, what can we do about this problem?
Sadly, this all feels quite doom and gloom, but there is hope! A few months ago, the United Nations agreed to create a global plastic pollution treaty, which is due to be finalised in 2024. This legally binding treaty aims to tackle the plastic pollution crisis, by reducing the production of plastic waste, preventing plastic from entering the environment, facilitating clean-up projects, and mitigating impacts to fauna and the environment.
In the meantime, every little bit we can do to reduce our impact helps! By changing our consumer behaviour, we can prevent plastic waste from entering circulation. Additionally, while they can appear to be a ‘drop in the ocean’, local clean-ups can be incredibly beneficial for reducing the amount of plastic ending up in our oceans and the bellies of wildlife. For example, the combination of UV and warmth from the sun, and the abrasive nature of sand, salt, and wave action on beaches mean they are a major source of micro- and nanoplastics, as larger plastic items are broken down into microscopic flakes and shards (46). If you live near the coast, try to remove plastics from the beach when you see them. You can also make a huge difference if you live inland, too! A recent study found that the majority of plastics entered the oceans via rivers (47). By cleaning our local waterways, we can stop a major source of plastics into the oceans, and prevent harm to our marine species.
Plastic has been found in nearly every environment on Earth, and sadly it is likely exposure of most, if not all, living things to plastic is inevitable. We urgently need further research in this field, not only to better understand how we can reduce the impacts of the plastic pollution crisis on wildlife, but also to better understand how we, as humans, may also be affected. But there are many ways in which we can take action to help address the plastic pollution crisis, and prevent further harm to our iconic and unique marine species!
Check out our other blogs for more information about how plastics affect our local environments, and ways we can make a difference!
National Recycling Week: Microplastics
Plastic Free July with the Marine Mammal Foundation
The Marine Mammal Foundation is a not-for-profit charity organisation, protecting the marine environment through research, community engagement and education. Please consider supporting us with a tax-deductible donation.
Sources
(1) Akhbarizadeh, R.; Dobaradaran, S.; Amouei Torkmahalleh, M.; Saeedi, R.; Aibaghi, R.; Faraji Ghasemi, F. Suspended Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5), Microplastics (MPs), and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Air: Their Possible Relationships and Health Implications. Environ. Res. 2021, 192, 110339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.110339.
(2) Brahney, J.; Hallerud, M.; Heim, E.; Hahnenberger, M.; Sukumaran, S. Plastic Rain in Protected Areas of the United States. Science 2020, 368 (6496), 1257–1260. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz5819.
(3) Huang, J.; Chen, H.; Zheng, Y.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Gao, B. Microplastic Pollution in Soils and Groundwater: Characteristics, Analytical Methods and Impacts. Chem. Eng. J. 2021, 425, 131870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2021.131870.
(4) Napper, I.; Davies, B. F.; Clifford, H.; Elvin, S.; Koldewey, H.; Mayewski, P.; Miner, K.; Potocki, M.; Elmore, A.; Gajurel, A.; Thompson, R. C. Reaching New Heights in Plastic Pollution—Preliminary Findings of Microplastics on Mount Everest; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.10.020.
(5) Chiba, S.; Saito, H.; Fletcher, R.; Yogi, T.; Kayo, M.; Miyagi, S.; Ogido, M.; Fujikura, K. Human Footprint in the Abyss: 30 Year Records of Deep-Sea Plastic Debris. Mar. Policy 2018, 96, 204–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.03.022.
(6) Materić, D.; Kjær, H. A.; Vallelonga, P.; Tison, J.-L.; Röckmann, T.; Holzinger, R. Nanoplastics Measurements in Northern and Southern Polar Ice. Environ. Res. 2022, 208, 112741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.112741.
(7) Santos, R. G.; Machovsky-Capuska, G. E.; Andrades, R. Plastic Ingestion as an Evolutionary Trap: Toward a Holistic Understanding. Science 2021, 373 (6550), 56–60. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abh0945.
(8) Azevedo-Santos, V. M.; Gonçalves, G. R. L.; Manoel, P. S.; Andrade, M. C.; Lima, F. P.; Pelicice, F. M. Plastic Ingestion by Fish: A Global Assessment. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 255, 112994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.112994.
(9) Fossi, M. C.; Baini, M.; Simmonds, M. P. Cetaceans as Ocean Health Indicators of Marine Litter Impact at Global Scale. Front. Environ. Sci. 2020, 8, 586627. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2020.586627.
(10) Battisti, C.; Staffieri, E.; Poeta, G.; Sorace, A.; Luiselli, L.; Amori, G. Interactions between Anthropogenic Litter and Birds: A Global Review with a “black-List” of Species. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 138, 93–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.11.017.
(11) Haegerbaeumer, A.; Mueller, M.-T.; Fueser, H.; Traunspurger, W. Impacts of Micro- and Nano-Sized Plastic Particles on Benthic Invertebrates: A Literature Review and Gap Analysis. Front. Environ. Sci. 2019, 7, 17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2019.00017.
(12) Staffieri, E.; de Lucia, G. A.; Camedda, A.; Poeta, G.; Battisti, C. Pressure and Impact of Anthropogenic Litter on Marine and Estuarine Reptiles: An Updated “Blacklist” Highlighting Gaps of Evidence. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2019, 26 (2), 1238–1249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3616-4.
(13) Botterell, Z. L. R.; Beaumont, N.; Dorrington, T.; Steinke, M.; Thompson, R. C.; Lindeque, P. K. Bioavailability and Effects of Microplastics on Marine Zooplankton: A Review. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 245, 98–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.10.065.
(14) Jenner, L. C.; Rotchell, J. M.; Bennett, R. T.; Cowen, M.; Tentzeris, V.; Sadofsky, L. R. Detection of Microplastics in Human Lung Tissue Using ΜFTIR Spectroscopy. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 831, 154907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154907.
(15) Leslie, H. A.; van Velzen, M. J. M.; Brandsma, S. H.; Vethaak, A. D.; Garcia-Vallejo, J. J.; Lamoree, M. H. Discovery and Quantification of Plastic Particle Pollution in Human Blood. Environ. Int. 2022, 163, 107199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2022.107199.
(16) Ragusa, A.; Notarstefano, V.; Svelato, A.; Belloni, A.; Gioacchini, G.; Blondeel, C.; Zucchelli, E.; De Luca, C.; D’Avino, S.; Gulotta, A.; Carnevali, O.; Giorgini, E. Raman Microspectroscopy Detection and Characterisation of Microplastics in Human Breastmilk. Polymers 2022, 14 (13), 2700. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14132700.
(17) Ragusa, A.; Svelato, A.; Santacroce, C.; Catalano, P.; Notarstefano, V.; Carnevali, O.; Papa, F.; Rongioletti, M. C. A.; Baiocco, F.; Draghi, S.; D’Amore, E.; Rinaldo, D.; Matta, M.; Giorgini, E. Plasticenta: First Evidence of Microplastics in Human Placenta. Environ. Int. 2021, 146, 106274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106274.
(18) Corfield, J. R.; Price, K.; Iwaniuk, A. N.; Gutierrez-Ibañez, C.; Birkhead, T.; Wylie, D. R. Diversity in Olfactory Bulb Size in Birds Reflects Allometry, Ecology, and Phylogeny. Front. Neuroanat. 2015, 9, 102. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnana.2015.00102.
(19) 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, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.11.014.
(20) 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 (11), e1600395. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600395.
(21) Kowalewsky, S.; Dambach, M.; Mauck, B.; Dehnhardt, G. High Olfactory Sensitivity for Dimethyl Sulphide in Harbour Seals. Biol. Lett. 2006, 2 (1), 106–109. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2005.0380.
(22) Martin, R. A. A Review of Behavioural Ecology of Whale Sharks (Rhincodon Typus). Fish. Res. 2007, 84 (1), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2006.11.010.
(23) Galloway, T. S.; Cole, M.; Lewis, C. Interactions of Microplastic Debris throughout the Marine Ecosystem. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2017, 1 (5), 0116. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0116.
(24) Wilcox, C.; Van Sebille, E.; Hardesty, B. D. Threat of Plastic Pollution to Seabirds Is Global, Pervasive, and Increasing. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2015, 112 (38), 11899–11904. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1502108112.
(25) Lavers, J. L.; Bond, A. L. Long-Term Decline in Fledging Body Condition in Flesh-Footed Shearwaters (Ardenna Carneipes). ICES. J. Mar. Sci. 2022, [In Review].
(26) Day, R. H.; Wehle, D. H. S.; Coleman, F. Ingestion of Plastic Pollutants by Marine Birds; Proceedings of the Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1985; pp 344–386.
(27) Gall, S. C.; Thompson, R. C. The Impact of Debris on Marine Life. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 92 (1–2), 170–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.12.041.
(28) Campanale, C.; Massarelli, C.; Savino, I.; Locaputo, V.; Uricchio, V. F. A Detailed Review Study on Potential Effects of Microplastics and Additives of Concern on Human Health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17 (4), 1212. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041212.
(29) Szabo, D.; Lavers, J. L.; Shimeta, J.; Green, M. P.; Mulder, R. A.; Clarke, B. O. Correlations between Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances and Body Morphometrics in Fledgling Shearwaters Impacted by Plastic Consumption from a Remote Pacific Island. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2021, 40 (3), 799–810. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.4924.
(30) Hwang, J.; Choi, D.; Han, S.; Jung, S. Y.; Choi, J.; Hong, J. Potential Toxicity of Polystyrene Microplastic Particles. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 7391. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-64464-9.
(31) Deng, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Lemos, B.; Ren, H. Tissue Accumulation of Microplastics in Mice and Biomarker Responses Suggest Widespread Health Risks of Exposure. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 46687. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep46687.
(32) Lim, D.; Jeong, J.; Song, K. S.; Sung, J. H.; Oh, S. M.; Choi, J. Inhalation Toxicity of Polystyrene Micro(Nano)Plastics Using Modified OECD TG 412. Chemosphere 2021, 262, 128330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128330.
(33) Mattsson, K.; Johnson, E. V.; Malmendal, A.; Linse, S.; Hansson, L.-A.; Cedervall, T. Brain Damage and Behavioural Disorders in Fish Induced by Plastic Nanoparticles Delivered through the Food Chain. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 11452. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-10813-0.
(34) Pitt, J. A.; Kozal, J. S.; Jayasundara, N.; Massarsky, A.; Trevisan, R.; Geitner, N.; Wiesner, M.; Levin, E. D.; Di Giulio, R. T. Uptake, Tissue Distribution, and Toxicity of Polystyrene Nanoparticles in Developing Zebrafish (Danio Rerio). Aquat. Toxicol. 2018, 194, 185–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2017.11.017.
(35) Jin, Y.; Lu, L.; Tu, W.; Luo, T.; Fu, Z. Impacts of Polystyrene Microplastic on the Gut Barrier, Microbiota and Metabolism of Mice. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 649, 308–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.353.
(36) Chae, Y.; An, Y.-J. Nanoplastic Ingestion Induces Behavioral Disorders in Terrestrial Snails: Trophic Transfer Effects via Vascular Plants. Environ. Sci.: Nano 2020, 7 (3), 975–983. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9EN01335K.
(37) Luo, T.; Wang, C.; Pan, Z.; Jin, C.; Fu, Z.; Jin, Y. Maternal Polystyrene Microplastic Exposure during Gestation and Lactation Altered Metabolic Homeostasis in the Dams and Their F1 and F2 Offspring. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53 (18), 10978–10992. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b03191.
(38) Barshtein, G.; Arbell, D.; Yedgar, S. Hemolytic Effect of Polymeric Nanoparticles: Role of Albumin. IEEE Trans. Nanobiosci. 2011, 10 (4), 259–261. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNB.2011.2175745.
(39) Sarasamma, S.; Audira, G.; Siregar, P.; Malhotra, N.; Lai, Y.-H.; Liang, S.-T.; Chen, J.-R.; Chen, K.; Hsiao, C.-D. Nanoplastics Cause Neurobehavioral Impairments, Reproductive and Oxidative Damages, and Biomarker Responses in Zebrafish: Throwing up Alarms of Wide Spread Health Risk of Exposure. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21 (4), 1410. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21041410.
(40) Jeong, C.-B.; Kang, H.-M.; Lee, M.-C.; Kim, D.-H.; Han, J.; Hwang, D.-S.; Souissi, S.; Lee, S.-J.; Shin, K.-H.; Park, H. G.; Lee, J.-S. Adverse Effects of Microplastics and Oxidative Stress-Induced MAPK/Nrf2 Pathway-Mediated Defense Mechanisms in the Marine Copepod Paracyclopina Nana. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 41323. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep41323.
(41) Lee, K.-W.; Shim, W. J.; Kwon, O. Y.; Kang, J.-H. Size-Dependent Effects of Micro Polystyrene Particles in the Marine Copepod Tigriopus Japonicus. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47 (19), 11278–11283. https://doi.org/10.1021/es401932b.
(42) Pedersen, A. F.; Meyer, D. N.; Petriv, A.-M. V.; Soto, A. L.; Shields, J. N.; Akemann, C.; Baker, B. B.; Tsou, W.-L.; Zhang, Y.; Baker, T. R. Nanoplastics Impact the Zebrafish (Danio Rerio) Transcriptome: Associated Developmental and Neurobehavioral Consequences. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 266 (Part 2), 115090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115090.
(43) Shengchen, W.; Jing, L.; Yujie, Y.; Yue, W.; Shiwen, X. Polystyrene Microplastics-Induced ROS Overproduction Disrupts the Skeletal Muscle Regeneration by Converting Myoblasts into Adipocytes. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 417, 125962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125962.
(44) Wang, J.; Li, Y.; Lu, L.; Zheng, M.; Zhang, X.; Tian, H.; Wang, W.; Ru, S. Polystyrene Microplastics Cause Tissue Damages, Sex-Specific Reproductive Disruption and Transgenerational Effects in Marine Medaka (Oryzias Melastigma). Environ. Pollut. 2019, 254, 113024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113024.
(45) Rivers-Auty, J.; Bond, A. L.; Grant, M. L.; Lavers, J. L. The One-Two Punch of Plastic Exposure: Macro- and Micro-Plastics Induce Multi-Organ Damage in Seabirds. J. Hazard. Mater. 2023, 442, 130117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.130117.
(46) Gewert, B.; Plassmann, M. M.; MacLeod, M. Pathways for Degradation of Plastic Polymers Floating in the Marine Environment. Environ. Sci.: Process. Impacts. 2015, 17, 1513–1521. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5EM00207A.
(47) Meijer, L. J. J.; van Emmerik, T.; van der Ent, R.; Schmidt, C.; Lebreton, L. More than 1000 Rivers Account for 80% of Global Riverine Plastic Emissions into the Ocean. Sci. Adv. 2021, 7 (18), eaaz5803. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaz5803.