We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Behavioural, metabolic and neuroxidative effects in juvenile Sparus aurata exposed to conventional and biobased microplastics
AI summary Read the abstract
Scientists tested whether "eco-friendly" bioplastics are actually safer than regular plastics by feeding both types to young seabream (a popular food fish) for a month. The good news: neither type caused serious or lasting harm to the fish's brain, behavior, or stress levels, though some minor, temporary changes in blood sugar and antioxidant activity showed up. This matters because it suggests that simply switching to bioplastics may not automatically make ocean plastic pollution less risky to marine life, and by extension, the seafood we eat, so more research is needed before assuming these alternatives are truly better.
Microplastic pollution in marine environments has raised significant concerns. However, it remains unclear whether bioplastic particles are indeed more environmentally-friendly and less noxious to marine species than conventional petroleum-based plastics. This study aimed to adopt a holistic approach (integrating animal behaviour, plasma metabolite profiling, brain histopathology and biochemical markers indicative of neural function and antioxidant responses) to assess the ecotoxicological effects of juvenile gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata) orally exposed to petroleum-based (polyethylene terephthalate, PET), and bio- (polybutylene succinate, PBS and polypropylene 2,5-furandicarboxylate, PPF) microplastics, for a period of 28 days. The ability of fish to recover from stress induced by plastics exposure was also investigated, by analysing the aforementioned endpoints following a seven-day depuration period. Of the twelve plasmatic metabolites assessed, only two were significantly affected by microplastics ingestion - glucose levels increased in fish exposed to PET, while amylase activity decreased after exposure to all three microplastics. There was no evidence of severe and/or irreversible alterations in neuronal function (i.e. acetylcholinesterase activity), cortisol levels, behaviour or brain histopathological structure. The antioxidant defence system was mildly affected by the exposure to PET and PBS (i.e. decreased catalase activity), although this effect was no longer observed during the depuration period. At the end of the exposure period no cell lipid peroxidation occurred, however, PPF stimulated the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway (i.e. increased ubiquitin content). Overall, the exposure to these microplastics could not be conclusively or clearly linked to persistent toxicity in gilthead seabream.
More Papers Like This
Effects of primary leachates of conventional and alternative plastics in Cyprinodon variegatus fish larvae: Endocrine disruption and toxicological responses
AI summary Read the abstract
Researchers exposed marine fish larvae to chemical leachates from both conventional and so-called eco-friendly plastics and measured the biological effects. They found that leachates from two alternative bioplastics caused complete larval mortality, while bag leachates from all tested materials disrupted hormonal and metabolic defense pathways. The study suggests that biodegradable plastics are not necessarily safer for marine life than conventional ones.
Experimental evidence of physiological and behavioral effects of microplastic ingestion in Sparus aurata
AI summary Read the abstract
Researchers fed juvenile gilthead sea bream diets enriched with virgin and weathered microplastics for 21 days and assessed physiological and behavioral effects. The study found that weathered microplastics caused greater cellular stress and antioxidant enzyme activation in liver and brain tissue, and that microplastic-exposed fish became significantly bolder during social interactions, suggesting both physiological and behavioral consequences of microplastic ingestion.
How harmless are alternative bioplastics? A review of their toxicological outcomes in aquatic organisms.
AI summary Read the abstract
"Bioplastics" and "biodegradable plastics" are often marketed as eco-friendly swaps for regular plastic, but this review of existing research found they can harm aquatic animals just as much, or even more, than traditional plastics, causing problems like organ damage, reproductive issues, and cellular stress in fish and other water-dwelling creatures. This matters because these materials are increasingly common in packaging and consumer goods, yet scientists still don't know enough about how they affect human health, so "green" labeling doesn't necessarily mean "safe." More research is urgently needed before we assume these alternatives are truly better for us
Environmentally derived nanoplastics induce oxidative and genotoxic responses in gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata)
AI summary Read the abstract
Scientists created tiny plastic particles from real ocean pollution and exposed fish to them for four days. The plastic particles didn't kill the fish, but they damaged the fish's DNA and caused harmful stress inside their cells. This matters because these same tiny plastics are building up in our oceans and food chain, potentially affecting the seafood we eat.
Exposure to petroleum-derived and biopolymer microplastics affect fast start escape performance and aerobic metabolism in a marine fish
AI summary Read the abstract
Researchers compared how microplastics from petroleum-based polyethylene and a plant-based biopolymer affected a marine fish's escape speed, swimming behavior, and oxygen consumption. Both types of microplastics caused slower escape responses and reduced aerobic fitness, though petroleum-based particles had somewhat stronger effects. The study suggests that biopolymer plastics, often marketed as environmentally friendly, may still pose risks to marine animals.
Research digests by email
When a large batch of papers lands in the Atlas, we read through it and send a short write-up of what stood out.