The effects of microplastics on ionoregulatory processes in the gills of freshwater fish and invertebrates: A prospective review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From review of the very few topical studies to date, we conclude that while effects are variable, microplastics can induce direct ionoregulatory disturbances in freshwater fish and invertebrates. However, the intensity depends on microplastic type, size, concentration, and exposure regime. More numerous are studies where indirect inferences about possible ionoregulatory effects can be drawn; these indicate increased mucus production, altered breathing, histopathological effects on gill structure, oxidative stress, and alterations in molecular pathways. All of these could have negative effects on ionoregulatory homeostasis. However, previous research has suffered from a lack of standardized reporting of microplastic characteristics and exposure conditions. Often overlooked is the fact that microplastics are dynamic contaminants, changing over time through degradation and fragmentation and subsequently exhibiting altered surface chemistry, notably an increased presence and diversity of functional groups. The same functional groups characterized on microplastics are also present in dissolved organic matter, often termed dissolved organic carbon (DOC), a class of substances for which we have a far greater understanding of their ionoregulatory actions. We highlight instances in which the effects of microplastic exposure resemble those of DOC exposure. We propose that in future microplastic investigations, in vivo techniques that have proven useful in understanding the ionoregulatory effects of DOC should be used including measurements of transepithelial potential, net and unidirectional radio-isotopic ion flux rates, and concentration kinetic analyses of uptake transport. More sophisticated in vitro approaches using cultured gill epithelia, Ussing chamber experiments on gill surrogate membranes, and scanning ion selective electrode techniques (SIET) may also prove useful. Finally, in future studies we advocate for minimum reporting requirements of microplastic properties and experimental conditions to help advance this important emerging field.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".