4.8 Article

Fish Ingest Microplastics Unintentionally

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 55, 期 15, 页码 10471-10479

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.1c01753

关键词

microfiber; feeding behavior; breath; cough; ecological risk

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41977344]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2020 M681230]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that different fish species have different responses to ingesting microplastics, with actively feeding fish consuming more. All observed species did not actively capture microfibers but instead passively sucked them in while breathing. Fish exhibited a behavior of rejecting microfibers, but some fibers were still found in their bodies.
Microplastics (size of plastic debris <5 mm) occur in various environments worldwide these days and cause detrimental effects on biota. However, the behavioral responses of fish to microplastics in feeding processes are not well understood. In the present study, juveniles from four fish species and two common shapes of microplastics were used to explore fish feeding responses. We found swallowing-feeding fish ingested more pellets than filtering- and sucking-feeding fish. With high-definition and high-speed observational experiments, we found that all species did not actively capture microfibers; instead, they passively sucked in microfibers while breathing. Surprisingly, fish showed a rejective behavior, which was spontaneously coughing up microfibers mixed with mucus. Nevertheless, some of the microfibers were still found in the gastrointestinal tracts and gills of fish, while abundances of ingested microfibers were increased in the presence of food. Our findings reveal a common phenomenon that fish ingest microplastics inadvertently rather than intentionally. We also provide insights into the pathways via which microplastics enter fish and potential strategies to assess future ecological risk and food safety related to microplastics.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据