Article
?
AI-assigned paper type based on the abstract. Classification may not be perfect — flag errors using the feedback button.
Tier 2
?
Original research — experimental, observational, or case-control study. Direct primary evidence.
Environmental Sources
Food & Water
Nanoplastics
Sign in to save
The disadvantage of having a big mouth: the relationship between insect body size and microplastic ingestion
2025
1 citation
?
Citation count from OpenAlex, updated daily. May differ slightly from the publisher's own count.
Score: 43
?
0–100 AI score estimating relevance to the microplastics field. Papers below 30 are filtered from public browse.
Marshall W. Ritchie,
Marshall W. Ritchie,
Marshall W. Ritchie,
Marshall W. Ritchie,
Marshall W. Ritchie,
Emily R. McColville,
Emily R. McColville,
Emily R. McColville,
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Marshall W. Ritchie,
Emily R. McColville,
Emily R. McColville,
Emily R. McColville,
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Marshall W. Ritchie,
Jennifer F. Provencher
Marshall W. Ritchie,
Emily R. McColville,
Marshall W. Ritchie,
Emily R. McColville,
Marshall W. Ritchie,
Marshall W. Ritchie,
Jennifer F. Provencher
Marshall W. Ritchie,
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Emily R. McColville,
Emily R. McColville,
Jennifer F. Provencher
James H. Mills,
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Heath A. MacMillan,
James H. Mills,
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Heath A. MacMillan,
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Heath A. MacMillan,
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Heath A. MacMillan,
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Susan M. Bertram,
Susan M. Bertram,
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Heath A. MacMillan,
Heath A. MacMillan,
Heath A. MacMillan,
Heath A. MacMillan,
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Heath A. MacMillan,
Jennifer F. Provencher
Heath A. MacMillan,
Jennifer F. Provencher
Heath A. MacMillan,
Heath A. MacMillan,
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Heath A. MacMillan,
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Heath A. MacMillan,
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Heath A. MacMillan,
Jennifer F. Provencher
Jennifer F. Provencher
Summary
Researchers studied how crickets of different sizes interact with microplastic particles of different sizes throughout their growth, finding that crickets only ingest microplastics when the particle is small enough to fit in their mouth whole. Crucially, once eaten, larger particles were more extensively broken down inside the cricket's gut — meaning insects can physically fragment microplastics into even smaller, potentially more harmful nanoplastics. The crickets showed no avoidance behavior toward plastic, readily consuming it when it fit. This research has important implications for understanding how microplastics move through food webs and get broken into more dangerous size ranges.
Abstract Plastic pollution is ubiquitous, and animals are exposed to diverse plastic shapes and sizes. When plastics enter natural environments, they break down into microplastics (MPs; <5 mm) and likely become more accessible to smaller animals. Insects play critical environmental and economic roles, ingest plastics in the wild, and can physically degrade ingested MPs into smaller and more harmful nanoplastics. While particle size and body size undoubtedly impact plastic ingestion, we have no predictive understanding of how these factors interact to influence which plastics are a threat to which animals. To uncover these potential interactions, we studied how a model cricket species ( Gryllodes sigillatus ) interacts with plastics of differing sizes throughout a twentyfold change in body size during growth and development. We fed crickets a range of MP sizes of 38 to 500 µm with clearly defined particle size thresholds. We investigated whether crickets would avoid MPs when given a choice and found that they do not; instead they gradually began to consume more of the plastic diet over time. We then studied how MP ingestion is influenced by body size and mouth size, and the extent of breakdown that occurs once MPs are ingested. We found that crickets would only consume whole beads when their mouth size was larger than the MP. While small MPs were more likely to be excreted whole, larger MPs were more extensively broken down as crickets grew. We conclude that crickets do not exhibit avoidance behaviour towards plastic and ingest it once a particle can be consumed whole. These effects of insect behaviour and body size on the likelihood of plastic ingestion and the degree to which MPs are degraded have important implications for regulating the size classes of plastic particles entering natural environments and how plastics move through those environments once discarded.