Impacts to Larval Fathead Minnows Vary between Preconsumer and Environmental Microplastics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microplastics are a complex suite of contaminants varying in size, shape, polymer, and associated chemicals and are sometimes referred to as a "multiple stressor." Still, the majority of studies testing hypotheses about their effects use commercially bought microplastics of a uniform size, shape, and type. We investigated the effects of polyethylene and polypropylene microplastics purchased as preproduction pellets (referred to as "preconsumer") and a mixture of polyethylene and polypropylene collected from the environment (environmental microplastic). Embryo-stage fathead minnows were exposed to either the physical plastic particles and their leachates or the chemical leachates alone at an environmentally relevant (280 particles/L) or high (2800 particles/L) concentration for 14 d. The effects of microplastics differed by polymer type and presence of environmental contaminants, and effects can be driven by the physical particles and/or the chemical leachates alone. Larvae exposed to preconsumer polyethylene experienced a decrease in survival, length, and weight, whereas preconsumer polypropylene caused an increase in weight. Environmental microplastics caused a more drastic increase in length and weight and almost 6 times more deformities as the preconsumer microplastics. Although preconsumer microplastics caused effects only when organisms were exposed to both the particles and the chemical leachates, the environmental microplastics caused effects when organisms were exposed to the chemical leachates alone, suggesting that the mechanism of effects are context-dependent. The present study provides further support for treating microplastics as a multiple stressor and suggests that testing for effects with pristine microplastics may underestimate the true effects of microplastics in the environment. Environ Toxicol Chem 2022;41:858-868. © 2021 SETAC.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".