Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-b5k59 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-09T07:49:55.724Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Environmental toxicology of marine microplastic pollution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Wen-Xiong Wang*
Affiliation:
School of Energy and Environment and State Key Laboratory of Marine Pollution, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China Research Centre for the Oceans and Human Health, City University of Hong Kong Shenzhen Research Institute, Shenzhen, China
*
Corresponding author: Wen-Xiong Wang; Email: wx.wang@cityu.edu.hk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Over the past decade, there have been increasing recognition and concern of the toxicological impacts of microplastics (MPs) in the environment, which have been widely found in various marine environments from estuary to deep oceans. Numerous toxicological studies have been conducted on the impacts of MPs on various marine organisms, especially phytoplankton, zooplankton, bivalves, and fish of different trophic levels. These studies mainly focused on the measurements of MPs bioaccumulation and their resulting biological impacts at molecular, metabolic, biochemical, physiological, and organismic levels. This review examines the various studies conducted over the recent years on the toxicology of MPs in different marine organisms, particularly on the bioaccumulation and toxicity of MPs. The impacts of MPs on marine organisms are diverse, and the complexity of organism physiology as well as MPs physical and chemical properties need to be considered. Future studies should consider the environmental relevance of toxicological research and the development of quantitative tools to model the transport, bioaccumulation, and toxicity of MPs. These are important for the real environmental risk assessments of MPs in the marine environments.

Topics structure

Information

Type
Review
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Statistics of papers published on ‘microplastics’ and ‘marine’ since 2006 with citation numbers. Data mined from Web of Science on May 8, 2020.

Figure 1

Figure 2. The basic scope of the environmental toxicology of microplastics.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Transport of microplastics in different marine food chains with considerations of different properties of microplastics.

Author comment: Environmental toxicology of marine microplastic pollution — R0/PR1

Comments

Dear Editor:

This is an invited review on the environmental toxicology of microplastics in the marine environment. Much appreciated for your invitation!

Review: Environmental toxicology of marine microplastic pollution — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

This is a review of environmental toxicology of marine microplastic pollution researches in recent years and focuses on the bioaccumulation and toxicity of microplastics in marine organisms (phytoplankton, zooplankton, bivalves, and fish), and presents some key questions that need to be addressed in future environmental toxicology studies of MPs in marine environments. It suggest that impacts of microplastics on marine organisms are rather inconclusive, largely due to the complexity of organism physiology and microplastics physical and chemical properties. Here are my major concerns: (1) Background information of some studies is incomplete, such as the concentration of plastic used in the experiment and the experimental time. Some statements are too general and need to be further strengthened. (2) It is necessary to increase the elaboration of the connection between the literature and the problem. (3) The logic is not clear and rigorous enough, and the content is not coherent and readable, and some statements are not concise enough. (4) Although many references are used, in-depth discussion is lacking. Overall, the authors need to make a major revision before acceptance for publication.

Specific comments

Abstract:

Ln 36-38: “Numerous toxicological studies……various trophic levels in the marine ecosystems.” The emergence of this kind of general discourse is not necessary. It can be emphasized that what are the most studied biological objects of microplastics in recent years.

Ln 42-45: This sentence does not fit in Abstract.

Ln 45: Analysis of the literature in relation to the recommendations is lacking.

Introduction

In this section, a few flaws of logic need to be corrected and some contents of background knowledge need to be completed, and the categories and properties of microplastics are more important.

Ln 61: Such estimates should have specific scientific models or research support.

Ln 63: “plumes” may not be proper to describe microplastics.

Ln 65-67: Some of the language is not objective enough.

Ln 74-76: So why has this microorganism not been applied? Please write the whole idea complete, rather than suddenly add such an irrelevant sentence and before and after the statement.

Ln 77: “which could be the largest sink of plastic wastes in the ocean.” Is this conclusion supported by references?

Ln 84: Where are data in “Figure 1.” from?

Ln 107: The effect of biological factors on plastic aging can’t be ignored.

Ln 114: “biologically inert to organisms” Need a further explanation.

Ln 117-119: The importance and necessity of this study are not enough. ‘Similar reviews have been published in the literature rather extensively’, why is such an incomplete review needed? What is the innovation of the article? Please point out the necessity of review.

Ln 119: An introduction to the range of information covered by the review is missing.

Ln 120: “mechanistic instead of observational” Need a further explanation.

Bioaccumulation and Trophic Transfer

In this section, a few flaws of logic need to be corrected and some contents of specific research need to be completed.

Ln 169 “current feeding” may led misunderstanding.

Ln 171-172: Explain how low concentrations of phytoplankton promote copepod uptake of microplastics. For example, microplastics attached to phytoplankton are more likely to be ingested, or copepods ingest microplastics about the same size as phytoplankton.

Ln 175-176: The density of fibers of different materials is different, so this expression is not rigorous.

Ln 179-181: ‘The MPs ingested by copepods were mainly fragments’, this is different from the results of the literature listed in this paragraph. Is this conclusion from the new literature?

Ln 183-191: Different literatures have different conclusions. Can there be further explanation?

Ln 197-198: The expression is not specific enough, too general.

Ln 205-206: The authors may read: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127957

Ln 222-238: Please discuss in depth, do not just pile up articles. Suggest reading: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124136

Ln 282-283: In bivalves, the clearance rate of large size was higher than that of small size, while in fish, the removal efficiency was independent of the size of microplastics. Can there be an explanation?

Ln 295-296: This sentence appears very abrupt, with the text before and after not a good convergence, which makes readers confusing.

Ln 300-302: Not specific enough.

Ln 304: This part may include exact cases, such as: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142099

Ln 340-341: The direct conclusion of the study makes this part of the structure incomplete. Please briefly describe the study.

Toxicity

The background information of some studies is incomplete, such as the concentration of plastic used in the experiment and the experimental time. Some statements are too general and need to be further introduced.

Ln 357: “and much remains unknown for other surface properties.” If this sentence is to be combined with the latter part of the plasticizer, then the surface coating statement is not comprehensive, replaced by additives may be more appropriate.

Ln 383: “pulse exposure” need a further explain.

Ln 423-425: This part of the expression is too omitted. It is not meaningful to simply state the change of intestinal flora. It is suggested to further summarize or delete the intestinal microbial part.

Ln 491-493: What are the specific effects of adsorption and aggregation?

Ln 493-494: Lack of references.

Ln 497-499: Please specify how it will change.

Ln 500: What are the standards for high concentrations?

Ln 501-503: Inhibit or increase, please specify.

Ln 505-506: Lack of references.

Ln 513-529: The previous paragraph is also related to photosynthesis and growth. Why not put them together?

Ln 517-527: What caused the different effects? Is it related to species, concentration or size? Can the concentration and size combinations of microplastics beyond the limits of algae self-regulation be obtained through different literature analysis?

Ln 541: What is “MP effect” specifically?

Ln 580-588: The description of the study should be more specific.

Ln 568-570: How is this derived?

Ln 602: Toxicity to bivalves: Please discuss the categories in a certain order.

The background information of some studies is incomplete, such as the concentration of plastic used in the experiment and the experimental time. Some statements are too general and need to be further introduced.

Ln 638-639: “Mussels appeared to recover during depuration, but less so for those exposed previously to NP-PS.” This sentence is not accurate enough, it is recommended to further state or just delete it.

Ln 699: What is the reason for the reduction?

Ln 742: Does this imply that microplastics cause the proliferation of pathogenic bacteria in the intestine of fish?

Further research

The end part is too hasty, it is necessary to continue to expand the analysis to improve the overall structure.

Ln 825: What is “accumulation sites (site of action)” exactly refer to? Organ? Be more specific.

Ln 855-856: The end of this part is too hasty, and an example is not enough.

Review: Environmental toxicology of marine microplastic pollution — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

General comment:

The paper presents an important contribution to the discussion of microplastics, despite not presenting an innovative review, it brings the increment and update of the most recent research on the occurrence and effects of microplastics in marine organisms of different trophic levels. In addition to this fact, the author seeks to discuss and argue based on the references, the importance of environmentally and ecologically relevant studies. However, some reflections need to be pointed out.

The evaluation in environmentally relevant scenarios and concentrations is important, but it is necessary to understand the issue of work. Therefore, to understand the biochemical, physiological and ecological effects of plastic particles and their additives in the body, it is often necessary to use concentrations well above environmental ones.

Another important aspect, the wide discussion about the concentrations observed in the environment being underestimated, largely due to the methods employed and their limitations. Such discussions would bring greater enrichment to the debate and the proposed approach.

So I suggest adding them to the paper.

Keywords:

I suggest replacing the words microplastic and marine, since they already appear in the title, we must use the keywords to enter terms that do not appear in the title so that we can increase the ability of the work to be found in a search.

Introduction and Topics:

Throughout the text there are long paragraphs without references. I recommend adding them.

Line 117: replace aqueous with aquatic.

Line 387 -389: “For example, water exposure may lead to accumulation of these MPs in the gills of marine fish, whereas trophic transfer may predominantly result in the accumulation of MPs in their digestive systems”

The accumulation of MPs in the digestive tract does not necessarily occur by trophic transfer, it can also occur by direct ingestion of particles present in the environment.

Further research:

802 – 8013: This recommendation will possibly change after the insertion of new discussions over high concentrations.

I missed a final conclusion on the paper as a whole, linking the different aspects addressed in the review, mainly the ecological aspects that are the main focus of the review.

Recommendation: Environmental toxicology of marine microplastic pollution — R0/PR4

Comments

Dear Prof Wang

We just received the comments and suggestions made by reviewers, and the recommended a set of revisions prior to the MS publication. The comments seem to be constructive and provide useful basis to improve the MS. Thus I ask you please to revise the MS considering the reviewers' suggestions. If you rebut any suggestion, please provide a sound reason for that. Please present a list of actions, one by one, regarding each reviewer comment, together with the revised version of the MS.

I look forward to receive the revised version of the manuscript.

Kind regards

Denis Abessa

Decision: Environmental toxicology of marine microplastic pollution — R0/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Environmental toxicology of marine microplastic pollution — R1/PR6

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Review: Environmental toxicology of marine microplastic pollution — R1/PR7

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

It is good to see that the authors have made changes in response to some of the changes suggested by the reviewers. Overall, this paper is acceptable for publication.

However, the authors still pile up simple conclusions from numerous literatures and further discussion of some research results (e.g., gut microbes, selective feeding, bioenrichment, etc.) is necessary. I suggest the authors to strengthen the depth of discussion for some key points if possible.

Recommendation: Environmental toxicology of marine microplastic pollution — R1/PR8

Comments

Dear Prof Wang

We received the comments on the revised manuscript, and decided that your MS can be accepted to be published. I congrat you!

The journal’s editorial office will be in contact with to move forward with the paper publication.

Thank you for considering Cambridge Prism Plastics to publishing your results.

Kindest regards

Denis

Decision: Environmental toxicology of marine microplastic pollution — R1/PR9

Comments

No accompanying comment.