We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comparison of the Potential Chronic Toxicity of Polypropylene and Polylactic Acid to the Amphipod Gammarus Aequicauda
Summary
Researchers compared the chronic toxicity of conventional polypropylene (PP) and biodegradable polylactic acid (PLA) microplastics on the marine amphipod Gammarus aequicauda to assess whether bioplastics are a safer alternative. The study found that both polymer types caused harm to this crustacean, indicating biodegradable plastics are not necessarily benign once released into marine environments.
Plastic pollution is known to be a significant human-caused environmental hazard. Plastic persists and accumulates in coastal and marine ecosystems around the world, affecting their structure and function, and consequently the services they provide. The increasing demand for eco-friendly alternatives to conventional plastics has led to the development of biodegradable polymers. Although these polymers degrade more easily than traditional plastics under certain conditions, they can still end up in the environment if not managed properly. The ecotoxicological effects of bioplastics on the marine biota are still scarce and limited. This study compared the sublethal effects of the biodegradable polymer polylactic acid microplastics (PLA MPs) and non-biodegradable polymer polypropylene microplastics (PP MPs) on the marine amphipod Gammarus aequicauda. Juvenile amphipods (2–4 mm) were exposed to 5 mg/L of PLA and PP MPs (38–212 µm) obtained from commercial cups, in a chronic exposure (60 days) to assess their effect on the growth (assessed by measuring the head length and counting the number of articles of the first antennae) and fertility (reproduction, embryonic development, newborns per female and aborted eggs). The results showed that both PLA and PP MPs significantly slowed the growth and impaired the reproductive fitness in G. aequicauda. The effects trends were similar for both polymers (PLA and PP) and only in a few cases did they show significant differences between them. However, conventional PP MPs were always found to be slightly more toxic than the PLA MPs. At the end of the chronic exposure period, the control amphipods had grown by 260% compared to the time 0, while those treated with MPs had grown by 223% and 197% for PLA and PP, respectively. The new-borns per female were 17.1 ± 3 in the control group and 10.5 and 9.8 in the PLA and PP MPs exposed groups, respectively. Furthermore, here for the first time the expression levels of seven genes involved in stress responses, were followed by Real time qPCR, to identify the molecular targets of PLA and PP. Molecular results supported the chronic toxicity showing an up-regulation of genes. Funding: This work was realised in the framework of BIOPLAST4SAFE project “Biomonitoring of biodegradable micro and nanoplastics: from the environment to humans in a one health perspective (Biomonitoraggio di micro e nanoplastiche biodegradabili: dall’ambiente all’uomo in una prospettiva one health) with the technical and economic support of the Italian Ministry of Health–PNC funds.
Sign in to start a discussion.
More Papers Like This
Are polylactic acid (PLA) microplastics a risk to marine organisms? Acute and chronic effects on the amphipods Gammarus aequicauda
Researchers tested whether polylactic acid (PLA) microplastics, often marketed as a biodegradable alternative to conventional plastics, are safe for marine life. Both short-term and long-term exposure to PLA microplastics harmed marine amphipods, causing mortality at high concentrations and reduced growth and reproduction at lower levels. This challenges the assumption that biodegradable plastics are harmless to the environment and suggests they may pose similar risks as conventional microplastics.
Polylactic acid versus polypropylene microplastics: ecotoxicological effects on Gammarus aequicauda using a multi-level approach
Researchers compared the ecotoxicological effects of bioplastic (polylactic acid) and fossil-based (polypropylene) microplastics on the amphipod Gammarus aequicauda over 60 days. Both types caused significant growth reduction by day 45, but polypropylene exposure led to lower survival rates and more pronounced reproductive impairment, while gene expression analysis showed both types induced similar stress responses over time.
Chronic toxicity of biodegradable microplastic (Polylactic acid) to Daphnia magna: A comparison with polyethylene terephthalate
Scientists compared the toxicity of biodegradable PLA microplastics with conventional PET microplastics on water fleas and found that PLA was actually more harmful. At higher concentrations, PLA microplastics killed nearly half the organisms, reduced reproduction, and increased birth defects more than PET particles did. This challenges the assumption that biodegradable plastics are safer for the environment, suggesting they may pose similar or even greater ecological risks than conventional plastics.
Can biodegradable plastics mitigate plastamination? Feedbacks from marine organisms
Researchers tested whether biodegradable plastics (PLA) are safer for marine life than conventional plastics (polypropylene) and found that both types caused similar toxic effects in marine animals. Both plastics triggered stress responses and cell damage in brine shrimp at multiple life stages, with more advanced stages being more sensitive. This raises doubts about whether switching to biodegradable plastics will actually reduce the harm of microplastic pollution in oceans.
Toxicity comparison of polylactic acid and polyethylene microplastics co-exposed with methylmercury on Daphnia magna
Researchers compared the toxicity of biodegradable polylactic acid microplastics with conventional polyethylene microplastics, both alone and in combination with methylmercury, on water fleas. The biodegradable microplastics caused greater harm, significantly reducing survival and reproduction while also increasing mercury accumulation in the organisms. The findings challenge the assumption that biodegradable plastics are always safer for the environment, suggesting they may actually enhance the toxicity of co-occurring pollutants.