2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.psep.2020.05.050
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Review of microplastic occurrence and toxicological effects in marine environment: Experimental evidence of inflammation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
51
0
2

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 189 publications
(68 citation statements)
references
References 113 publications
0
51
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Our analysis showed that among the experimental conditions analysed, the time of exposure to microplastics was relevant, suggesting that organisms exposed to microplastics for long periods were the most vulnerable. Among shapes, fibres and fragment plastic particles were reported as having a greater impact according to Pirsaheb et al (2020), who found that fibres and fragments with a rough surface (sharp edges) caused more physical damage than spherical microplastics. The analysis conducted on microplastic type suggested that there was no specific type of microplastic that affected organisms more than others.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Our analysis showed that among the experimental conditions analysed, the time of exposure to microplastics was relevant, suggesting that organisms exposed to microplastics for long periods were the most vulnerable. Among shapes, fibres and fragment plastic particles were reported as having a greater impact according to Pirsaheb et al (2020), who found that fibres and fragments with a rough surface (sharp edges) caused more physical damage than spherical microplastics. The analysis conducted on microplastic type suggested that there was no specific type of microplastic that affected organisms more than others.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, to gain insight on the effects of any potential disturbance factor, such as microplastics on the functional traits of fishes, it is crucial to increase our understanding of how microplastics can impair basic functions (as expressed by organismal functional traits; Violle et al, 2007) of ecological functioning. Several perspective and opinion papers have tried to shed light on the effects of microplastic pollution on the biotic components of aquatic systems and attempted to summarise the accumulated knowledge (Al‐Thawadi, 2020; Pirsaheb et al, 2020). So far, however, efforts to synthesise available data through meta‐analytical quantitative approaches are limited (Foley et al, 2018).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Exposure to microplastics might induce gut microbiota dysbiosis and intestinal damage, alterations and inflammation within marine organisms (Choi et al., 2018; Jin et al., 2018). Consequently, macro‐ and microplastics ingested by biota ranging from marine invertebrates to apical vertebrates may be causing metabolism disorders in addition to gut obstructions (Pirsaheb et al., 2020). Therefore, preventive measures to minimize the release of these pollutants to the oceans and seas should be a priority for the conservation of global marine ecosystems.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It might lead to decreasing strength and death by predation or starvation to contamination by external microbes from biofouling and missing nutritional opportunities (Boerger et al, 2010;Rotjan et al, 2019;Machovsky-Capuska et al, 2020;Santos et al, 2020). Thus, the ingestion of indigestible debris may block nutrient absorption and cause mechanical damage to the intestinal tract in fishes (Germanov et al, 2018), especially those with sharp instead of rounded edges (Pirsaheb et al, 2020). Yet, anthropogenic debris may sorb and accumulate contaminants and become highly toxic (Barnes et al, 2009;Cole et al, 2013;Setälä et al, 2014), acting as disruptors of the endocrine system through plastic-derived estrogen mimics released from aqueous systems into the environment (LaFleur and Schug, 2011).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%