Next Article in Journal
Effects of Amendments and Indigenous Microorganisms on the Growth and Cd and Pb Uptake of Coriander (Coriandrum sativum L.) in Heavy Metal-Contaminated Soils
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluation of Work-Related Personal Exposure to Aerosol Particles
Previous Article in Special Issue
Occurrence of Natural and Synthetic Micro-Fibers in the Mediterranean Sea: A Review
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Editorial

Editorial for the Special Issue “Microplastics in Aquatic Environments: Occurrence, Distribution and Effects”

1
Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences Ecosystems and Environment Research Programme, University of Helsinki, Niemenkatu 73, FI-15140 Lahti, Finland
2
Department of Chemistry “Ugo Schiff”, University of Florence, Via della Lastruccia 3—Sesto Fiorentino, 50019 Florence, Italy
3
Consorzio Interuniversitario per lo Sviluppo dei Sistemi a Grande Interfase (CSGI), University of Florence, Via della Lastruccia 3—Sesto Fiorentino, 50019 Florence, Italy
4
CESAM—Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies, Department of Biology, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Toxics 2022, 10(7), 407; https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics10070407
Submission received: 18 July 2022 / Accepted: 19 July 2022 / Published: 21 July 2022
The large production and widespread daily consumption of plastic materials—which began in the last century—together with the often-inadequate collection and recycling systems, have made plastics and, consequently, microplastics (MPs) ubiquitous pollutants [1].
The scientific community is increasingly concerned about microplastic pollution and its possible effects on biota and the environment. Aquatic ecosystems such as rivers, lakes, estuaries, seas, and oceans seem to act as important sinks for plastics and microplastics. Microplastic pollution is so widespread that we might assume no aquatic environment has been left untouched [2,3,4,5].
Microplastic pollution as a global concern is confirmed by the research papers collected in this Special Issue; these papers come from 28 Universities and research institutions and are spread across ten countries in three continents.
The Special Issue “Microplastics in Aquatic Environments: Occurrence, Distribution and Effects” collected and published 11 novel contributions focusing on microplastics in aquatic environments, their occurrence and distribution, and the effects they might have on the environment and biota. The selected papers comprise three reviews and eight research articles. In their review, Yang et al. (2021) [6] summarized the current literature on MPs in the marine environment, focusing on the sources and fates of MPs and their impacts on marine organisms; moreover, they highlighted the potential of bacteria in plastic degradation processes and the need to further study this subject.
Santini et al. (2022) [7] addressed the occurrence of natural and synthetic microfibers in waters, sediments, and biota in the Mediterranean Sea, emphasizing the challenges in distinguishing natural fibers from plastics ones, and the need to further study the environmental impact of both.
Lim et al. (2022) [8] conducted a meta-analysis of the characterization of plastic ingested by fish on a global scale, and found that plastic fibers are the most-ingested items (70.6%). Additionally, the authors observed that polyethylene (15.7%) and polyester (11.6%) are the most abundant polymers found in fishes’ digestive organs. In terms of size, the most frequently ingested plastics were small microplastics (<1 mm).
The eight selected research papers can be grouped into three main themes: (1) the effects of microplastic exposure to aquatic biota (rotifers, mussels, fish larvae, and microalgae), encompassing 55% of the published papers in this SI [9,10,11,12,13,14]; (2) the distribution and seasonal variation of microplastics in aquatic environments [15]; and (3) the contaminants associated with microplastics in freshwater environments [16].
As Guest Editors of this Special Issue, we were pleased to receive several papers concerning the interaction between microplastics and biota; despite a large number of peer-reviewed papers published on this research topic, there are still several gaps that need to be filled [17,18]. Zhang et al. (2022) [12], for instance, investigated the toxicity of fluorescent nano- and microplastics (80 nm and 8 μm) on grass carp embryos and larvae using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and fluorescence imaging. Their results showed that nanoplastics accumulated in the chorion and did not penetrate the embryo’s chorionic membrane. The larvae were prone not only to ingesting microplastics and expelling them with their feces, but also to ingesting the expelled microplastics again while feeding on their own excrement, re-accumulating the plastic particles in their oral cavities. Furthermore, the authors showed that microplastics around 1 μm in size could accumulate in the larvae’s nasal cavities.
Drago and Weithoff (2021) [9] analyzed the fitness responses of two rotifer species, Brachionus calyciflorus and Brachionus fernandoi, when exposed to polystyrene (1-, 3-, 6-µm), polyamide microplastics (5–25 µm) and silica beads (3 µm, SiO2). The results showed that 3-µm polystyrene had a significant effect on the population growth rate of both rotifer species, whereas no effect was evidenced after exposure to polyamide microplastics and silica beads.
In another study, von Hellfeld and co-authors (2022) evaluated the toxicity of polystyrene MPs in marine mussels Mytilus galloprovincialis when exposed to two different polystyrene microplastic sizes (45 µm and 4.5 µm) [10]. The exposure was carried out with pristine and contaminated microplastics, with cadmium (Cd) and benzo(a)pyrene (BaP). The pristine microplastics (both tested sizes) were found in the digestive gland after 1 day of exposure, while after 3 days of depuration, 4.5 µm microplastics had accumulated within the gill filaments. In contrast to Cd, BaP body burdens increased significantly in mussels exposed to BaP-contaminated microplastics, causing histological changes in the digestive gland. These results show that polystyrene microplastics can act as a carrier of organic contaminants and pose a threat to aquatic biota.
The toxicity of microplastics on M. galloprovincialis was studied also by Rodrigues et al. (2022) [11]. Mussels were exposed to polyamide microplastics alone and in combination with the toxic exudate from the invasive red seaweed Asparagopsis armata. The study showed that microplastics accumulated mainly in the digestive gland of the organisms and that the combined exposure to microplastics and A. armata induced oxidative damage at the protein level in the gills and reduced the production of byssus. This study highlights the need to assess microplastics’ toxicity in combination with other stress factors, such as invasive species and contaminants. In this regard, Scott et al. (2021) [16] studied the interactions between different polymer types of microplastics and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in a lacustrine and a controlled environment. The polymers were kept submerged in the lake water in the presence of associated organic/inorganic matter and biofilm for one and three months; meanwhile, in the laboratory experiment, the polymers were kept in water contaminated with PFAS but without inorganic and organic matter. The results indicated that the presence of inorganic and organic matter considerably enhances the adsorption of PFAS by polymers; this emphasizes the need to assess the risks posed by microplastic pollution under realistic environmental conditions.
All the exposure experiments described so far suggest that microplastic pollution may constitute a serious hazard to aquatic biota. For instance, according to Hadiyanto et al. (2021) [13], Styrofoam microplastics can inhibit the photosynthesis process of Spirulina platensis, as well as being a source of nutrients, especially carbon, for the microalgae.
Other organisms that have been found to be capable of ingesting microplastics are blackfly larvae (Simuliidae), as shown by Corami et al. (2022) [14]. Two species of blackfly larvae, Simulium equinum and Simulium ornatum, were sampled from two rivers in Italy and analyzed for microplastics (<100 μm), and natural and non-plastic synthetic fibers. The authors showed, for the first time, that blackfly larvae can ingest microplastics from their habitat and suggested that these organisms could be employed as bioindicators for microplastic pollution in rivers, as they are already bioindicators used to assess river water quality. Indeed, rivers can be heavily contaminated with microplastics, as Wicaksono et al. (2021) pointed out in their study [15]. The authors collected water and sediment samples along the Tallo River (Indonesia) during the wet and dry seasons. Microplastic concentration was up to 3.41 ± 0.13 item/m3 and 150 ± 36.06 item/kg for water and sediment samples, respectively. As in many other aquatic environments, the most abundant polymers found in the Tallo River were polyethylene and polypropylene [15].
The results of the contributions collected herein have helped to fill some knowledge gaps about the occurrence, distribution, and effects of microplastics on aquatic ecosystems. The outcomes clearly indicate that microplastic pollution is a serious environmental issue; the scientific community should increase its knowledge and understanding of how it could affect the environment, biota, and humans, and how it could be reduced and prevented. Nevertheless, to adopt adequate mitigation strategies and contribute to preserving biodiversity and environmental health towards zero pollution, it is pivotal that the studies consider realistic and environmentally relevant conditions.
We would like to thank all the authors for submitting their original contributions to this Special Issue. We greatly appreciate the support of all the reviewers who spent time evaluating and improving the quality of the manuscripts. Last but not least, we would like to thank the editors of Toxics for their kind invitation, and Mia Yan, Selena Li, and Linda Li of the Toxics Editorial Office for their precious support.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Wu, P.; Huang, J.; Zheng, Y.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; He, F.; Chen, H.; Quan, G.; Yan, J.; Li, T.; et al. Environmental occurrences, fate, and impacts of microplastics. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2019, 184, 109612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Nizzetto, L.; Bussi, G.; Futter, M.N.; Butterfield, D.; Whitehead, P.G. A theoretical assessment of microplastic transport in river catchments and their retention by soils and river sediments. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 2016, 18, 1050–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Wagner, M.; Scherer, C.; Alvarez-Muñoz, D.; Brennholt, N.; Bourrain, X.; Buchinger, S.; Fries, E.; Grosbois, C.; Klasmeier, J.; Marti, T.; et al. Microplastics in freshwater ecosystems: What we know and what we need to know. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2014, 26, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Scopetani, C.; Chelazzi, D.; Martellini, T.; Pellinen, J.; Ugolini, A.; Sarti, C.; Cincinelli, A. Occurrence and characterization of microplastic and mesoplastic pollution in the Migliarino San Rossore, Massaciuccoli Nature Park (Italy). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 171, 112712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Antunes, J.; Frias, J.; Sobral, P. Microplastics on the Portuguese coast. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 131, 294–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Yang, H.; Chen, G.; Wang, J. Microplastics in the Marine Environment: Sources, Fates, Impacts and Microbial Degradation. Toxics 2021, 9, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Santini, S.; De Beni, E.; Martellini, T.; Sarti, C.; Randazzo, D.; Ciraolo, R.; Scopetani, C.; Cincinelli, A. Occurrence of Natural and Synthetic Micro-Fibers in the Mediterranean Sea: A Review. Toxics 2022, 10, 391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lim, K.P.; Lim, P.E.; Yusoff, S.; Sun, C.; Ding, J.; Loh, K.H. A Meta-Analysis of the Characterisations of Plastic Ingested by Fish Globally. Toxics 2022, 10, 186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Drago, C.; Weithoff, G. Variable Fitness Response of Two Rotifer Species Exposed to Microplastics Particles: The Role of Food Quantity and Quality. Toxics 2021, 9, 305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Von Hellfeld, R.; Zarzuelo, M.; Zaldibar, B.; Cajaraville, M.P.; Orbea, A. Accumulation, Depuration, and Biological Effects of Polystyrene Microplastic Spheres and Adsorbed Cadmium and Benzo(a)pyrene on the Mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis. Toxics 2022, 10, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Rodrigues, F.G.; Vieira, H.C.; Campos, D.; Pires, S.F.S.; Rodrigues, A.C.M.; Silva, A.L.P.; Soares, A.M.V.M.; Oliveira, J.M.M.; Bordalo, M.D. Co-Exposure with an Invasive Seaweed Exudate Increases Toxicity of Polyamide Microplastics in the Marine Mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis. Toxics 2022, 10, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Zhang, C.; Zuo, Z.; Wang, Q.; Wang, S.; Lv, L.; Zou, J. Size Effects of Microplastics on Embryos and Observation of Toxicity Kinetics in Larvae of Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella). Toxics 2022, 10, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Hadiyanto, H.; Haris, A.; Muhammad, F.; Afiati, N.; Khoironi, A. Interaction between Styrofoam and Microalgae Spirulina platensis in Brackish Water System. Toxics 2021, 9, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Corami, F.; Rosso, B.; Iannilli, V.; Ciadamidaro, S.; Bravo, B.; Barbante, C. Occurrence and Characterization of Small Microplastics (<100 μm), Additives, and Plasticizers in Larvae of Simuliidae. Toxics 2022, 10, 383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wicaksono, E.A.; Werorilangi, S.; Galloway, T.S.; Tahir, A. Distribution and Seasonal Variation of Microplastics in Tallo River, Makassar, Eastern Indonesia. Toxics 2021, 9, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Scott, J.W.; Gunderson, K.G.; Green, L.A.; Rediske, R.R.; Steinman, A.D. Perfluoroalkylated Substances (PFAS) Associated with Microplastics in a Lake Environment. Toxics 2021, 9, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Scopetani, C.; Esterhuizen, M.; Cincinelli, A.; Pflugmacher, S. Microplastics Exposure Causes Negligible Effects on the Oxidative Response Enzymes Glutathione Reductase and Peroxidase in the Oligochaete Tubifex tubifex. Toxics 2020, 8, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Silva, C.J.; Machado, A.L.; Campos, D.; Rodrigues, A.C.; Silva, A.L.P.; Soares, A.M.; Pestana, J.L. Microplastics in freshwater sediments: Effects on benthic invertebrate communities and ecosystem functioning assessed in artificial streams. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 804, 150118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Scopetani, C.; Martellini, T.; Campos, D. Editorial for the Special Issue “Microplastics in Aquatic Environments: Occurrence, Distribution and Effects”. Toxics 2022, 10, 407. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics10070407

AMA Style

Scopetani C, Martellini T, Campos D. Editorial for the Special Issue “Microplastics in Aquatic Environments: Occurrence, Distribution and Effects”. Toxics. 2022; 10(7):407. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics10070407

Chicago/Turabian Style

Scopetani, Costanza, Tania Martellini, and Diana Campos. 2022. "Editorial for the Special Issue “Microplastics in Aquatic Environments: Occurrence, Distribution and Effects”" Toxics 10, no. 7: 407. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics10070407

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop