We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
What are the drivers of microplastic toxicity? Comparing the toxicity of plastic chemicals and particles to Daphnia magna
Summary
Researchers exposed water fleas to three types of microplastics -- PVC, polyurethane, and polylactic acid (a biodegradable plastic) -- to determine whether toxicity comes primarily from the particles themselves or from their chemical additives. They found that all three types harmed the organisms, but the drivers of toxicity varied by plastic type, with PVC toxicity linked to its chemical additives while polylactic acid reduced survival through particle effects. Notably, the study suggests that bio-based and biodegradable plastics can be just as toxic as conventional ones.
Given the ubiquitous presence of microplastics in aquatic environments, an evaluation of their toxicity is essential. Microplastics are a heterogeneous set of materials that differ not only in particle properties, like size and shape, but also in chemical composition, including polymers, additives and side products. Thus far, it remains unknown whether the plastic chemicals or the particle itself are the driving factor for microplastic toxicity. To address this question, we exposed Daphnia magna for 21 days to irregular polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyurethane (PUR) and polylactic acid (PLA) microplastics as well as to natural kaolin particles in high concentrations (10, 50, 100, 500 mg/L, ≤ 59 μm) and different exposure scenarios, including microplastics and microplastics without extractable chemicals as well as the extracted and migrating chemicals alone. All three microplastic types negatively affected the life-history of D. magna. However, this toxicity depended on the endpoint and the material. While PVC had the largest effect on reproduction, PLA reduced survival most effectively. The latter indicates that bio-based and biodegradable plastics can be as toxic as their conventional counterparts. The natural particle kaolin was less toxic than microplastics when comparing numerical concentrations. Importantly, the contribution of plastic chemicals to the toxicity was also plastic type-specific. While we can attribute effects of PVC to the chemicals used in the material, effects of PUR and PLA plastics were induced by the mere particle. Our study demonstrates that plastic chemicals can drive microplastic toxicity. This highlights the importance of considering the individual chemical composition of plastics when assessing their environmental risks. Our results suggest that less studied polymer types, like PVC and PUR, as well as bioplastics are of particular toxicological relevance and should get a higher priority in ecotoxicological studies.
Sign in to start a discussion.
More Papers Like This
Sublethal effects of bio-plastic microparticles and their components on the behaviour of Daphnia magna.
This study compared the toxicity of bioplastic microparticles made from PLA and PHB to traditional fossil-based plastics on water fleas, a common test organism. Surprisingly, the bioplastic particles were about five times more toxic than their chemical additives alone, and commercial bioplastic products were more harmful than standard laboratory-grade materials. This challenges the assumption that biodegradable plastics are automatically safer for the environment and raises questions about what happens when bioplastics break down into microparticles.
The contribution of additives to microplastic aquatic toxicity – A testing approach with model additives on selected aquatic organisms
Researchers developed a systematic testing approach to distinguish between the physical effects of microplastic particles and the chemical effects of their additives on aquatic organisms. The study found that polyethylene microplastics alone showed no significant toxicity to water fleas or protozoa, but the inorganic additive zinc oxide was toxic on its own. The findings suggest that the additives embedded in plastics, rather than the plastic particles themselves, may be the primary drivers of toxicity in some cases.
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.
Aquatic toxicity of chemically defined microplastics can be explained by functional additives
Researchers manufactured microplastics from four polymer types with precisely defined chemical compositions, including different additive formulations, and tested their toxicity to aquatic organisms. They found that the toxic effects of microplastics could largely be explained by the functional additives they contained rather than the base polymer itself. The study suggests that the chemical additives in plastics, not just the plastic material, are a primary driver of microplastic toxicity in aquatic environments.
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.