Next Article in Journal
Optical Design of a Novel Collimator System with a Variable Virtual-Object Distance for an Inspection Instrument of Mobile Phone Camera Optics
Next Article in Special Issue
Modeling and Parametric Simulation of Microplastic Transport in Groundwater Environments
Previous Article in Journal
Study of Rock Mass Rating (RMR) and Geological Strength Index (GSI) Correlations in Granite, Siltstone, Sandstone and Quartzite Rock Masses
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Influence of Polystyrene Microspheres Abundance on Development and Feeding Behavior of Artemia salina (Linnaeus, 1758)

1
Department of Chemical, Biological, Pharmaceutical and Environmental Sciences, University of Messina, 98166 Messina, Italy
2
Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Messina, 98168 Messina, Italy
3
Department of Biomedical, Dental Sciences and Morphological and Functional Images, University of Messina, 98125 Messina, Italy
4
Institute for Marine Biological Resources and Biotechnology (IRBIM), National Research Council (CNR), 98122 Messina, Italy
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Submission received: 15 March 2021 / Revised: 1 April 2021 / Accepted: 5 April 2021 / Published: 8 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Behavior of Microplastics in Environment)

Abstract

:
In the present study, it has been evaluated how 10 µm of polyethylene microspheres can be ingested by Artemia salina (Linnaeus, 1758) larvae within the first 7 days of the life cycle, and the impact on their health. Twelve A. salina larvae (instar I) groups were exposed to different microplastics (MPs) concentrations (0-1-10-102-103-104 MPs/mL), with and without Dunaliella salina as a food source. The results highlighted that A. salina larvae ingest MPs in relation to the exposure times in a dose-dependent manner and are significantly influenced by food availability. The highest contamination found was 306.2 MPs/individual at 104 MPs/mL exposure without a food source. No MPs were found in the presence of the food source from 1 to 102 MPs/mL, while contamination was detected at all concentrations of MPs without a food source. The worst effect on the developmental stages was evaluated at 168 h with a food source, with a delay compared to the control of I and II instars at 103 and 104 MPs/mL, respectively. Furthermore, microalgal feeding was significantly reduced for about 50% in the presence of 104 MPs/mL. These results highlight that aquatic microplastics pollution could affect the A. salina’s feeding behavior and life cycle.

1. Introduction

In the last decade, microplastics (MPs) pollution in aquatic environments has become one of the most prevalent ecosystem problems [1,2]. Due to their small size, MPs debris can be easily moved by environmental factors such as coastal winds, river flows or marine currents [3,4]. Moreover, this pollution can occur through fragmentation of larger plastic debris by physical, chemical and mechanical factors, due to their long residence times in nature [5]. Once in the water, plastic debris can float or sink accordingly with their density, which can also be influenced by the biological factors such as biofouling [6,7]. For these reasons, increasingly large quantities of MPs particles are found in the marine environment in the entire water column and consequently come into contact with living organisms [8,9,10]. The primary or secondary ingestions of MPs by the principal taxa of aquatic organisms has been confirmed by several field studies, in gelatinous plankton [11,12,13], mollusks [14,15,16], crustaceans [17,18], bone fish [19,20,21], cartilaginous fish [22,23,24], reptiles [25,26], seabirds [27,28], cetaceans [29,30,31], and other aquatic organisms. Many of the organisms in which contamination was detected, are also commercial interest species destined for human consumption, captured [32,33,34] or farmed [35,36,37], bringing this pollution to a relevant level of consumers interest.
Zooplankton has a key role in the aquatic trophic webs [38,39,40,41,42]. This importance is mainly related to the use of these organisms in the marine aquaculture industry, in which planktonic organisms such as rotifers and brine shrimp (Artemia sp.) are the primary living food source in the early stages of life of many farmed species [43,44,45,46]. Based on the ascertained biomagnification phenomena related to marine zooplankton [47,48,49], the deepening of the knowledge on MPs pollution in these organisms represents an important step for marine environmental and seafood-related research.
Brine shrimp, Artemia salina, is a small crustacean living in extreme environments such as highly saline lakes and pools [50,51,52] that represents an important food source for many aquatic animals. Beyond its already mentioned important role in aquaculture, due to their small size, life cycle and simplicity of its breeding, the genus Artemia represent a good model organism for experimental studies, mostly related to environmental toxicology [53], lately also connected in MPs toxicity research [54,55,56]. In natural environments, brine shrimps mainly feed on microalgae through filtration. In the same way, in aquaculture, A. salina previously enriched with live microalgae, yeasts or commercial enrichers is administered to the farmed organisms to transfer optimal nutrients [57,58]. Despite the known importance of A. salina in the aquaculture field and as an experimental model organism, few studies have been conducted on the effects of MPs on this organism, including behavioral aspects. Moreover, the interaction between microalgae, MPs and brine shrimps are far from being fully understood, and more insights are required.
In our study, we showed how during the first 7 days of the life cycle, 10 µm of Polybead® Blue Dyed Microspheres can be ingested and egested by A. salina larvae under Dunaliella salina feeding, or without a food source and the relative impacts on their behavior, health, and development.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Microplastics Used and Experimental Solutions

Based on the environmental feeding habits of A. salina, we MPs of dimensions as close as possible to the microalgae used in this study that it normally fed on. We selected the microalgae (D. salina) as a food source with an average size of 10 µm; therefore, our choice for the MPs size fell on the same dimension, to avoid a possible food preference based on a dimensional factors.
The MPs used in this study were 10 µm of Polybead® Blue Dyed Microspheres purchased from Polysciences in a 2 mL package in a 2.5% aqueous suspension at 4.55 × 107 particles/mL. The blue color was chosen for a better contrast against the organisms, being clearly different from any crustacean or algal structure used in the study. According to the previous environmental studies that reported microplastic concentrations for surface coastal waters [59,60] and with the considerations made by Wang [55] on the accumulation and the real estimation of MPs dispersed in seawater, we chose to test five concentrations of MPs (1, 10, 102, 103 and 104 MPs/mL) for our experiments. A diluted MPs stock solution was prepared in sterilized artificial marine water and used to start the experiment and for each solutions replacement to avoid any problems related to sedimentation, aggregation or adhesion of MPs to the surfaces (REF). All solutions counts were performed in triplicate before the administration during experimental phases, using a Leica DM6B microscope at 40× magnification in a Bürker Türk counting chamber (Marienfeld, Lauda-Königshofen, Germany).

2.2. A. Salina Hatching and Feeding

A. salina larvae were obtained from Blue Line Artemia Cyst (Acquariomania, Macerata, Italy) and hatched in a 1 L glass beaker in sterilized artificial marine water (Dissolved oxygen-DO 6.6 mg/L; salinity 37 ppt; pH 8.2 ± 0.1) made with Caledonia Reef Salt (ReeFlowers Aquarium Solutions, Başakşehir/İstanbul, Turkey) and ultrapure water (Milli-Q; Merck, Darmstadt, Germany). Strong aeration was provided in the hatching phase, with a temperature of 26 ± 0.5 °C. After the hatching and for all the experimental time, a pure strain culture of live D. salina was provided as a food source. Microalgae were cultured at 20 ± 1 °C, salinity 30 ppt, with a 4500 lux 24-h light photoperiod in f/2 medium. The microalgae concentration per ml was counted in triplicate for all solutions before the administration as verification during experimental phases of feeding rate, under a Leica DM6B microscope at 40× magnification in a Bürker Türk counting chamber. DO, salinity, temperature and pH were measured using a multiparameter probe as reported by Sanfilippo [61].

2.3. Experimental Design

The experimental procedures were performed at Center of Experimental Fishpathology of Sicily, Messina, Italy (CISS) [62,63,64]. After 24 h of incubation, the obtained A. salina nauplii (instar I) were collected and counted under a Leica M205 C (Leica Microsystems, Milan, Italy) stereoscope in a S50 Sedgewick Rafter counting chamber (Marienfeld, Lauda-Königshofen, Germany). Twelve experimental groups, in triplicate, were transferred with an automatic pipette in 10 mL glass test tubes with different concentration of MPs (0-1-10-102-103-104 MPs/mL), and treated as two experimental groups with the D. salina food source (Group A) and without the food source (Group B). Experimental treatments are reported in Table 1. A number of 60 A. salina nauplii (10 nauplii/mL, total solution volume 6 mL) was placed in each replicate. For the entire experiment, the glass tubes were placed in a rack and maintained in laboratory for 168 h at 24 ± 1 °C, with a 12D:12N photoperiod. Seven time points were set at 0-6-12-24-48-96-168 h. For every time point, five specimens per each replicate were sampled, clarified in 4% buffered formalin, and photographed under a Leica DM6B (Leica Microsystems, Milan, Italy) microscope equipped with a Leica DFC7000T (Leica Microsystems, Milan, Italy) Imaging system and LAS X software for further analysis. The total length (from the naupliar eye to the anus) of sampled specimens was recorded for each treatment at each time point. Mortality was recorded daily and collected with a glass pipette and transferred to a well slide under microscope to be analysed and photographed. The experimental solutions were replaced by 90% daily for each treatment to provide constant feeding to brine shrimps and to avoid MPs sedimentation [55].
From our pre-experimental tests, the sedimentation of MPs started after 48 h from administration in the presence of A. salina nauplii activity that provides constant motion to the solution. Before starting the experiment, we performed a 24-h ingestion/egestion trial using the method previously described by Bergami et al. [65]. In this trial, we found that brine shrimp nauplii egested about 90% of MPs after 3 h post-ingestion. Based on this data, the daily replacement of the solutions was considered necessary to avoid the decrease of the MPs concentration in the replicates due to the egestion rate through fecal pellets elimination.

2.4. Microplastic Uptake Assessment

To assess and quantify the different MPs uptake in A. salina, a direct counting and identification under a Leica DM6B microscope were performed [66,67]. In addition, several images of the analyzed specimens, from each group and time point sampled, were captured at different magnification with Leica DM6B equipped with a Leica DFC7000T Imaging system and LAS X software, for further analysis [68] with ImageJ software [69]. The identification of MPs was favored in some rare cases by gently crushing the organisms with the cover slide, to better spread and highlight the MPs on the slide (Figure 1).

2.5. Estimation of Feeding Rate

To better evaluate A. salina feeding behavior, a parallel test with all the same conditions was performed, except for the quantity of brine shrimps. One A. salina specimen was added in each 10 mL glass test tube for each treatment (0-1-10-102-103-104 MPs/mL) in triplicate. To assess the ingestion rate and the influence of MPs presence on its trend, counts after 24–48–96 and 168 h were made for each replicate under a Leica DM6B microscope at 40× magnification in a Bürker Türk chamber (hemocytometer). To obtain the ingestion rate as microalgae, the cells/larvae/h method was used as previously described by Frost [70]. The provided pure culture of D. salina was counted daily before the solutions replacement. An additional positive control was used to evaluate the growth of D. salina without brine shrimps feeding. Moreover, based on intestinal and MPs surfaces measurement, an estimation was carried out on the images obtained at each time point to calculate through the use of ImageJ software [69], the percentage of intestinal tract occupied by the MPs, and consequently subtracted from D. salina ingestion.

2.6. Data Analysis and Elaboration

For the A. salina, the total length and the intestinal tract measurement was used by ImageJ software [69]. The evaluation of the developing stages were performed as suggested by Wang [56] for Artemia parthenogenetica and relied on our control treatment. All data are expressed as means ± standard deviation (SD). One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) or non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis tests, followed by Fisher’s Least Significant Differences (LSD) post-hoc test, were used to evaluate significant differences in microplastic abundance, total length and mortality rate between the experimental groups. Differences were considered significant at p < 0.05.

3. Results

Our results showed significant differences in MPs ingestion, growth and mortality rate (p < 0.05) dependent on different treatment, MPs concentration and time of exposure.

3.1. MPs Ingestion Evaluation and Mortality

MPs ingestion was detected in both experimental Groups A and B (Figure 2 and Figure 3, Table 2). Microspheres were found in treatments A4–A5 and B1–B5. Significant differences were observed in MPs ingestion (p = 0.003) when exposed to a concentration of 104 MP/mL compared to other concentrations. The main variations in MPs ingestion between treatment A and B were observed between the exposure time T0, T6, T12 and T24 vs. T48 in the Group A and between T0, T6, T12 and T24 vs. T96 in the Group B.
Group A showed significant variation in MPs ingestion (p < 0.001) depending on exposure concentration. In particular, the main differences were detected between 104 MPs/mL and all other concentration investigated.
Mortality rates varied according to exposure time (p < 0.001) (Table 3), with the main differences observed between T168 vs. T0, T168 vs. T12 (p = 0.014). Similar results were observed in the Group B, where MPs abundance resulted to be dependent on exposure concentration (p = 0.001). Even in this case, the mortality rate followed an exposure time-dependent trend (p < 0.001), with a peak of mortality at T96 and T168.

3.2. Influence of MPs Ingestion on Growth and Development of A. salina

Total body length showed significant differences between the Group A and B (p = 0.028) (Figure 4). Indeed, analysis of variance highlighted significant variations also within both experimental groups. Group A showed significant variation between A0 and all others treatments (p < 0.001), except with A1 (p > 0.05). The highest differences of 258 µm in total body length were detected at T168 between A0 (1366.824 µm) and A5 (1108.746 µm) and of 116 µm between A0 (1366.824 µm) and A4 (1249.606 µm). At T96, a difference of 61 µm was detected between A0 (1162.024 µm) and A5 (1101.746 µm).
MPs concentration less influenced total body length within the Group B, showing at T96 a difference of 66 µm comparing B0 (981.26 µm) with B5 (915.164 µm), but not statistically relevant.
Qualitative anatomic features analysis performed from images of analyzed specimens showed significant differences between the two groups. Group B showed a significant delay in the development as compared to the Group A specimens. Indeed, the maximum reported development stage for the Group B (B0) ranged between instars II and III at T96 (before the total mortality due to starvation), where the naupliar eye was still a simple eye, and the antennae were the only active appendages because of the total absence of thoracopods. However, Group A (A0) reached at the same time point with the instar IV, where the naupliar eye was in differentiation towards the compound structures and an evident primordium of thoracopods were present. Moreover, at T168 in Group A replicas, the instar V was reached with the complete differentiation of the eye in median and compounds and an evident formation of thoracopods that become swimming appendages (Figure 5).
No evident anatomical differences were detected between the different treatments of Group B (Figure 6).
Within Group A, A0 at T168 reached instar V; A4 and A5 replicates reached instars IV and III respectively, showing different average developmental stages (Figure 5).

3.3. Influence of MPs Ingestion on Feeding Behavior

The results of a parallel experiment (see Section 2.5) are shown in Figure 7. The maximum microalgal ingestion rate reduction was 50.58% at T48 when exposed to 104 MPs/mL, of 24.08% at T96 when exposed to 103 MPs/mL and of 18.70% at T24 when exposed to 102 MPs/mL. It was only for the 104 MPs/mL exposure that registered a remarkable, increasing time-dependent trend of the microalgal ingestion rate, reaching 39.09% at T168. The data obtained from the positive control of D. salina, showed that the growth of algal concentration in absence of brine shrimps cannot be considered negligible. For this reason, we did not consider the influence of the algal growth concentration on the ingestion rate data.
The results of ingestion area measurement reported in Figure 8 showed a strong reduction of unoccupied MPs area in both A5 and B5, as well as in B4. The maximum values of MPs filling reached in A5 and B5 treatments was of 44.43% and 90.82%, respectively.
Additionally, the microalgae ingestion rate (%) showed a negative correlation with the MPs-filled area (r = −0.9; p < 0.001) and with MPs ingestion (r = −0.7; p < 0.001).

4. Discussion

The ingestion of various sizes of plastic debris by different aquatic organisms has been assessed in recent years. In fact, it is how these pollutants can affect biological systems and living organisms is the major issue under investigation of this topic [71,72]. It is known that plastic pollution can affect the natural environments and biota at all levels, in particular in terms of MPs and nanoplastics (NPs) [73,74]. Moreover, the influence of MPs on the biological, immunological and cellular functions is far from being completely understood in aquatic living organisms [75]. Microplastics ingestion was reported in many zooplanktonic organisms used as a model, such as Daphnia magna for larger MPs debris [68,76], copepods [77,78] and Artemia sp. [54,56] for smaller fractions (5–10 µm). These results, in addition those obtained in this study, can help to comprehend the fate and behavior of MPs in natural environments and effects on biota.
In this study, we investigated how the ingestion of 10 µm of polystyrene microspheres in the first phases of life cycle can influence A. salina larvae vitality, development and feeding behavior. The results obtained during the experimental phases highlighted that MPs can be easily internalized by brine shrimps through filtration. This feeding strategy is common in zooplankton organisms. This and other features make A. salina an excellent model organism for the study of MPs pollution influence on zooplanktonic trophic webs, as already suggested by other authors [79,80]. Moreover, these organisms are involved in biomagnification phenomena [29,48].
In our study, we found that MPs are already ingested by A. salina larvae 6 h post hatching in a dose-dependent manner, with the influence of exposure time reaching up to a maximum ingestible value after 48 h of exposure. These results are in accordance with other studies on MPs ingestion by zooplanktonic organisms that reported comparable ingestion times [55,81]. These values were maintained in the subsequent time points, highlighting that a threshold value for the ingestion of MPs under this condition was likely reached.
The data reported in Table 2 show the differences found between the replicates with and without a food source. It is evident that in the presence of microalgae, the ingestion of MPs is lower, probably because during their non-selective filtration activity, brine shrimps encounter rarely and randomly the plastic debris in the experimental solutions filled of microalgal cells [55]. It is also interesting to note that in the presence of microalgae, no MPs was found at the lower tested concentrations (1, 10, 102 MPs/mL) during the sampling steps. This represents important data if compared to the common environmental MPs concentrations reported by other authors [59,60,82,83], which are usually not far from 1 MPs/mL, whose ingestion could hence be unusual by these organisms. However, as reported in Figure 2, we found evident traces of a few egested MPs at 10 and 100 MPs/mL concentrations in fecal pellets. This proves that the ingestion of MPs occurs even at these concentrations, although in a minimal percentage not detected inside the organisms. In accordance with Wang [55,56], this detection problem was probably due to the disproportion between MPs debris and microalgal cells in water.
On the contrary, MPs contamination was detected at all the tested concentrations in absence of D. salina food source from T24. This feature confirmed that in the absence of other suspended particles, brine shrimps encounter and actively filter 10 µm of polystyrene microspheres, maintaining it inside the intestinal tract for a long time, as reported for other zooplanktonic organisms [84,85,86]. This also demonstrated the non-selective filtration activity of A. salina, in accordance with Wang [55] and Bergami [65] that reported respectively for A. parthenogenetica and A. franciscana the same feeding behavior. Indeed, despite it is not deriving any nourishment from MPs, brine shrimps filter all the debris of their available feeding range suspended in water without preference, in a dose-depended manner. It could be very interesting in the future to investigate if in the presence of environmental high value of MPs pollution, grazing animals are physically attracted by non-nutritive suspended matter comprised in their filtrations range.
Mortality was observed constantly during the experiment. This data was chosen as outcome by some previous toxicity studies regarding A. salina [87,88]. Massive mortality event occurred in our experiment between 96 h and 120 h for all the specimens of Group B, due clearly to starvation. This led to an absence of specimens at T168, which made all the results of the two groups comparable until T96. This time represents the life limit found in our study for non-fed A. salina in the presence of MPs. As a consequence, the mortality data showed a strong time-dependent trend in Group B. Compared with the mortality trend reported for A. parthenogenetica exposed to 10 µm MPs by Wang [55,56], little difference was found in Group A (only between T168 and T0/T12) demonstrating the absence of an acute toxic effect of MPs exposure. As a generalized effect, the developmental delay caused by the higher tested concentration of MPs (102, 103 and 104 MPs/mL), had little plausible contribution to mortality along the timeline for both Group A and B. These data are in accordance with the major development delay detected for A3, A4, and A5 when compared to A0 (control), which reasonably led to a higher mortality [89]. As evident from Figure 9, in almost all cases, the observed dead specimens showed exposure to MPs contamination, confirming their ingestion and retention capacities until the end of vital activity, in agreement with the MPs retention demonstrated for copepods by Cole [84].
The anatomical features, such as the total body length, were usually used for toxicity evaluations [90,91,92]. Data reported in the present study showed a decreasing trend in average total body length compared to the increase of MPs exposure concentrations in Group A. These results are in contrast with Wang [56] which did not report any differences in growth rate of A. parthenogenetica depending on concentration exposure, but in accordance with the results obtained by Kokalj [91] for Artemia franciscana. In our case, the biggest differences were detected at T96 between control and A4, A5, B4 and B5, with a higher value in Group A, highlighting a more significant effect of MPs ingestion in the presence of a food source. Moreover, for Group A, this effect was more marked at T168, demonstrating a correlation of growth also with the exposure time, as expected following a normal developing rate. Hence, an evaluable trend on this data was detected during the experiment and seems to be comparable between Group A and B with the same negative effect on growth proportionally to an increase in MPs ingestion. Moreover, as expected, a significant difference in total body length was detected comparing Group A with Group B, due certainly to the absence of food source.
Focusing the attention on the developmental stage, our results, as expected, highlighted the major differences between Groups A and B. The maximum reached instar for the control of Group B was comprised between instars II and III at the end of exposure (96 h); indeed, after this time a mass mortality event happened. This was attributable to the absence of a food source. Group A reached the instar IV at T96, showing anatomical differentiations in line with the normal development of the species [93,94]. After all, following normal development, instar V was reached at the end of exposure time (168 h) with the complete differentiation of the eye in median and compounds and an evident formation of thoracopods, which later become swimming appendages. As expected, the shared nutrients deficiency had a leveling effect between different experimental treatment. Group A developmental stages were probably attributable to the presence of a nutrient source that allowed a normal anatomical development. This highlighted that differences in developmental stages were attributable to the presence of MPs. In detail, while the control reached instar V, the replicates A4 and A5 reached instars IV and III, respectively, showing a different average development. These results are in contrast with Wang [56], who did not report any differences in developmental stages of A. parthenogenetica depending on the MPs concentration exposure.
We assume that the delay in development is due to the physical filling of intestinal tract by MPs, which reduced the ingestion of microalgae.
The filtration rate is one of the main focused targets in the toxicological study of organisms with this food strategy [24,81,90,95]. As reported in previous studies, the ingestion of plastic debris led to a reduction of the feeding rate in a dose-dependent manner in A. phartenogenetica [55], A. franciscana [65], D. magna [91] and Calanus helgolandicus [96]. Our results obtained from Group A are in accordance with these findings and showed a strong negative correlation between the MPs uptake and the microalgal ingestion rate in A. salina. During the experiment, the average maximum reduction of 50.58% of ingestion rate was found at T48 for the B5. This value is related with the maximum value of ingested MPs and the maximum reduction of intestinal area due to MPs ingestion; both were detected at the same time point. Moreover, the ingestion rate has risen to 39.09% at T168, with a similar trend to MPs ingestion rate, demonstrating the capacity of A. salina to filter debris in a non-selective and in a dose-dependent manner.
Furthermore, our results showed that the ingestion rate data were not influenced by microalgal concentration growth during the experiment. Indeed, D. salina concentration growth in absence of brine shrimps did not show a significant variation during the experimental period. This was mainly due to our algal cultivation conditions in which D. salina does not reach (even with 24D photoperiod) concentration in the pure culture, which is much higher than those used in the study. Hence, this is the maximum level of maturation of our pure culture. Moreover, the photoperiod used during the experimental phases (12D:12N) probably did not promote the algal concentration growth.
The intestinal tract is one the most studied targets in zooplankton toxicity studies [55,65,91]. For this reason, in our study, we focused attention to evaluate the feeding behavior of A. salina mainly on this anatomical structure of the larvae. The results of the estimation of the ingestion area show that a strong negative correlation between the MPs occupied area and microalgae ingestion rate was found. The absence of food source determined a maximum filling MPs value at T96 of 90.82% for B5. In Group A, the maximum intestinal MPs filling of 44.43% was reached in A5 at T96, demonstrating that in the presence of a similar size food source, the intestinal area available for the MPs uptake was strongly reduced and vice versa. These findings are strictly connected to differences found in total body length and developmental stages. As expected, the lower ingestion of nutritional food source due to MPs uptake, led to a developmental delay in a dose-dependent manner.

5. Conclusions

In this study, the ingestion and the influence of 10 µm polystyrene microspheres on growth and feeding behavior of A. salina in the presence or absence of microalgae D. salina food source were evaluated. Our results showed that the uptake of MPs in this organism is strongly influenced by the simultaneous presence of plastic debris and microalgae cells in water. MPs ingestion, in a dose-dependent manner, led to a developmental delay and a reduction in the total body length. Moreover, negative correlation between MPs ingestion and microalgal feeding rate was found, mainly due to a physical reduction of the available intestinal area for microalgal ingestion and subsequent nutrient assimilation. These anatomical variations probably led to a minor functional deficiency. Future studies will be needed to confirm these correlations. It will be essential to intensify the research on the biological and physiological effects of plastic pollutants in zooplankton model organisms to better understand how these mechanisms could influence the aquatic trophic webs and the effects on human health due to biomagnification phenomena.
The results of the present study can help build understanding on the fate and behavior of MPs in aquatic environments and how these pollutants can be transferred through the trophic chain.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.A. and G.C.; methodology, G.P., D.D.P. and F.C.; software, S.S. And G.P.; formal analysis, M.A. and S.S.; investigation, G.C.; data curation, M.A. and S.S.; writing—original draft preparation, M.A.; writing—review and editing, S.S., G.C., E.G. and R.C.; supervision, G.C. and N.S.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was financially supported by BIOBLU project—Robotic BIOremediation for coastal debris in BLUE Flag beach and in a Maritime Protected Area (Code Area C2). Grant Number: J49C20000060007.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, due to the absence of a specific regulation on the use of crustacean species for research [97].

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

A special thanks is due to Centre of Fish Pathology of Sicily staff for the technical support in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Cole, M.; Lindeque, P.; Halsband, C.; Galloway, T.S. Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: A review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62, 2588–2597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Law, K.L. Plastics in the Marine Environment. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 2017, 9, 205–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Cózar, A.; Sanz-Martín, M.; Martí, E.; González-Gordillo, J.I.; Ubeda, B.; Gálvez, J.Á.; Irigoien, X.; Duarte, C.M. Plastic accumulation in the mediterranean sea. PLoS ONE 2015, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Zhang, H. Transport of microplastics in coastal seas. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2017, 199, 74–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Barnes, D.K.A.; Galgani, F.; Thompson, R.C.; Barlaz, M. Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2009, 364, 1985–1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Kooi, M.; Van Nes, E.H.; Scheffer, M.; Koelmans, A.A. Ups and Downs in the Ocean: Effects of Biofouling on Vertical Transport of Microplastics. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 7963–7971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Van Melkebeke, M.; Janssen, C.; De Meester, S. Characteristics and Sinking Behavior of Typical Microplastics including the Potential Effect of Biofouling: Implications for Remediation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 8668–8680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Choi, J.S.; Jung, Y.J.; Hong, N.H.; Hong, S.H.; Park, J.W. Toxicological effects of irregularly shaped and spherical microplastics in a marine teleost, the sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 129, 231–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dai, Z.; Zhang, H.; Zhou, Q.; Tian, Y.; Chen, T.; Tu, C.; Fu, C.; Luo, Y. Occurrence of microplastics in the water column and sediment in an inland sea affected by intensive anthropogenic activities. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 242, 1557–1565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lenaker, P.L.; Baldwin, A.K.; Corsi, S.R.; Mason, S.A.; Reneau, P.C.; Scott, J.W. Vertical Distribution of Microplastics in the Water Column and Surficial Sediment from the Milwaukee River Basin to Lake Michigan. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 12227–12237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Costa, E.; Piazza, V.; Lavorano, S.; Faimali, M.; Garaventa, F.; Gambardella, C. Trophic Transfer of Microplastics From Copepods to Jellyfish in the Marine Environment. Front. Environ. Sci. 2020, 8, 1732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wieczorek, A.M.; Croot, P.L.; Lombard, F.; Sheahan, J.N.; Doyle, T.K. Microplastic Ingestion by Gelatinous Zooplankton May Lower Efficiency of the Biological Pump. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 5387–5395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Albano, M.; Panarello, G.; Di Paola, D.; D’Angelo, G.; Granata, A.; Savoca, S.; Capillo, G. The mauve stinger Pelagia noctiluca (Cnidaria, Scyphozoa) plastics contamination, the Strait of Messina case. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 2021, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Abidli, S.; Lahbib, Y.; Trigui El Menif, N. Microplastics in commercial molluscs from the lagoon of Bizerte (Northern Tunisia). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 142, 243–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Naji, A.; Nuri, M.; Vethaak, A.D. Microplastics contamination in molluscs from the northern part of the Persian Gulf. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 235, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ward, J.E.; Rosa, M.; Shumway, S.E. Capture, ingestion, and egestion of microplastics by suspension-feeding bivalves: A 40-year history. Anthr. Coasts 2019, 2, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Cau, A.; Avio, C.G.; Dessì, C.; Follesa, M.C.; Moccia, D.; Regoli, F.; Pusceddu, A. Microplastics in the crustaceans Nephrops norvegicus and Aristeus antennatus: Flagship species for deep-sea environments? Environ. Pollut. 2019, 255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Iannilli, V.; Di Gennaro, A.; Lecce, F.; Sighicelli, M.; Falconieri, M.; Pietrelli, L.; Poeta, G.; Battisti, C. Microplastics in Talitrus saltator (Crustacea, Amphipoda): New evidence of ingestion from natural contexts. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 28725–28729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bottari, T.; Savoca, S.; Mancuso, M.; Capillo, G.; GiuseppePanarello, G.; MartinaBonsignore, M.; Crupi, R.; Sanfilippo, M.; D’Urso, L.; Compagnini, G.; et al. Plastics occurrence in the gastrointestinal tract of Zeus faber and Lepidopus caudatus from the Tyrrhenian Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 146, 408–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Savoca, S.; Capillo, G.; Mancuso, M.; Faggio, C.; Panarello, G.; Crupi, R.; Bonsignore, M.; D’Urso, L.; Compagnini, G.; Neri, F.; et al. Detection of artificial cellulose microfibers in Boops boops from the northern coasts of Sicily (Central Mediterranean). Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 691, 455–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Capillo, G.; Savoca, S.; Panarello, G.; Mancuso, M.; Branca, C.; Romano, V.; D’Angelo, G.; Bottari, T.; Spanò, N. Quali-quantitative analysis of plastics and synthetic microfibers found in demersal species from Southern Tyrrhenian Sea (Central Mediterranean). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Alomar, C.; Deudero, S. Evidence of microplastic ingestion in the shark Galeus melastomus Rafinesque, 1810 in the continental shelf off the western Mediterranean Sea. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 223, 223–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Fossi, M.C.; Pedà, C.; Compa, M.; Tsangaris, C.; Alomar, C.; Claro, F.; Ioakeimidis, C.; Galgani, F.; Hema, T.; Deudero, S.; et al. Bioindicators for monitoring marine litter ingestion and its impacts on Mediterranean biodiversity. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 237, 1023–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Germanov, E.S.; Marshall, A.D.; Hendrawan, I.G.; Admiraal, R.; Rohner, C.A.; Argeswara, J.; Wulandari, R.; Himawan, M.R.; Loneragan, N.R. Microplastics on the Menu: Plastics Pollute Indonesian Manta Ray and Whale Shark Feeding Grounds. Front. Mar. Sci. 2019, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Duncan, E.M.; Broderick, A.C.; Fuller, W.J.; Galloway, T.S.; Godfrey, M.H.; Hamann, M.; Limpus, C.J.; Lindeque, P.K.; Mayes, A.G.; Omeyer, L.C.M.; et al. Microplastic ingestion ubiquitous in marine turtles. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2019, 25, 744–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Schuyler, Q.; Hardesty, B.D.; Wilcox, C.; Townsend, K. Global Analysis of Anthropogenic Debris Ingestion by Sea Turtles. Conserv. Biol. 2014, 28, 129–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Amélineau, F.; Bonnet, D.; Heitz, O.; Mortreux, V.; Harding, A.M.A.; Karnovsky, N.; Walkusz, W.; Fort, J.; Grémillet, D. Microplastic pollution in the Greenland Sea: Background levels and selective contamination of planktivorous diving seabirds. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 219, 1131–1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Provencher, J.F.; Vermaire, J.C.; Avery-Gomm, S.; Braune, B.M.; Mallory, M.L. Garbage in guano? Microplastic debris found in faecal precursors of seabirds known to ingest plastics. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 644, 1477–1484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Alava, J.J. Modeling the Bioaccumulation and Biomagnification Potential of Microplastics in a Cetacean Foodweb of the Northeastern Pacific: A Prospective Tool to Assess the Risk Exposure to Plastic Particles. Front. Mar. Sci. 2020, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lusher, A.L.; Hernandez-Milian, G.; O’Brien, J.; Berrow, S.; O’Connor, I.; Officer, R. Microplastic and macroplastic ingestion by a deep diving, oceanic cetacean: The True’s beaked whale Mesoplodon mirus. Environ. Pollut. 2015, 199, 185–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhu, J.; Yu, X.; Zhang, Q.; Li, Y.; Tan, S.; Li, D.; Yang, Z.; Wang, J. Cetaceans and microplastics: First report of microplastic ingestion by a coastal delphinid, Sousa chinensis. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 659, 649–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Mancuso, M.; Savoca, S.; Bottari, T. First record of microplastics ingestion by European hake MERLUCCIUS MERLUCCIUS from the Tyrrhenian Sicilian coast (Central Mediterranean Sea). J. Fish Biol. 2019, 94, 517–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Savoca, S.; Bottari, T.; Fazio, E.; Bonsignore, M.; Mancuso, M.; Luna, G.M.; Romeo, T.; D’Urso, L.; Capillo, G.; Panarello, G.; et al. Plastics occurrence in juveniles of Engraulis encrasicolus and Sardina pilchardus in the Southern Tyrrhenian Sea. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Savoca, S.; Capillo, G.; Mancuso, M.; Bottari, T.; Crupi, R.; Branca, C.; Romano, V.; Faggio, C.; D’Angelo, G.; Spanò, N. Microplastics occurrence in the Tyrrhenian waters and in the gastrointestinal tract of two congener species of seabreams. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2019, 67, 35–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Garcia, A.G.; Suárez, D.C.; Li, J.; Rotchell, J.M. A comparison of microplastic contamination in freshwater fish from natural and farmed sources. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Walkinshaw, C.; Lindeque, P.K.; Thompson, R.; Tolhurst, T.; Cole, M. Microplastics and seafood: Lower trophic organisms at highest risk of contamination. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2020, 190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Chan, H.S.H.; Dingle, C.; Not, C. Evidence for non-selective ingestion of microplastic in demersal fish. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Stoecker, D.; Pierson, J. Predation on protozoa: Its importance to zooplankton revisited. J. Plankton Res. 2019, 41, 367–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Hrycik, A.R.; Stockwell, J.D. Under-ice mesocosms reveal the primacy of light but the importance of zooplankton in winter phytoplankton dynamics. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2020, 66, 481–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Hunt, B.P.V.; Carlotti, F.; Donoso, K.; Pagano, M.; D’Ortenzio, F.; Taillandier, V.; Conan, P. Trophic pathways of phytoplankton size classes through the zooplankton food web over the spring transition period in the north-west Mediterranean Sea. J. Geophys. Res. Ocean. 2017, 122, 6309–6324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Venkataramana, V.; Anilkumar, N.; Naik, R.K.; Mishra, R.K.; Sabu, P. Temperature and phytoplankton size class biomass drives the zooplankton food web dynamics in the Indian Ocean sector of the Southern Ocean. Polar Biol. 2019, 42, 823–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Capillo, G.; Panarello, G.; Savoca, S.; Sanfilippo, M.; Albano, M.; Volsi, R.L.; Consolo, G.; Spanò, N. Intertidal ponds of messina’s beachrock faunal assemblage, evaluation of ecosystem dynamics and communities’ interactions. AAPP Atti della Accad. Peloritana dei Pericolanti Cl. di Sci. Fis. Mat. e Nat. 2018, 96, A41–A416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Dhont, J.; Sorgeloos, P. Applications of Artemia. In Artemia: Basic and Applied Biology; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2002; pp. 251–277. [Google Scholar]
  44. Hagiwara, A.; Marcial, H.S. The use of non-Brachionus plicatilis species complex rotifer in larviculture. Hydrobiologia 2019, 844, 163–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Hagiwara, A.; Yoshinaga, T. Rotifers: Aquaculture, Ecology, Gerontology, and Ecotoxicology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  46. Lavens, P.; Sorgeloos, P. The history, present status and prospects of the availability of Artemia cysts for aquaculture. Aquaculture 2000, 181, 397–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Foster, K.L.; Stern, G.A.; Pazerniuk, M.A.; Hickie, B.; Walkusz, W.; Wang, F.; MacDonald, R.W. Mercury biomagnification in marine zooplankton food webs in hudson bay. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 12952–12959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Provencher, J.F.; Ammendolia, J.; Rochman, C.M.; Mallory, M.L. Assessing plastic debris in aquatic food webs: What we know and don’t know about uptake and trophic transfer. Environ. Rev. 2019, 27, 304–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rennie, M.D.; Strecker, A.L.; Palmer, M.E. Bythotrephes invasion elevates trophic position of zooplankton and fish: Implications for contaminant biomagnification. Biol. Invasions 2011, 13, 2621–2634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Browne, R.A.; MacDonald, G.H. Biogeography of the Brine Shrimp, Artemia: Distribution of Parthenogenetic and Sexual Populations. J. Biogeogr. 1982, 9, 331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mitchell, B.D.; Geddes, M.C. Distribution of the brine shrimps Parartemia zietziana Sayce and Artemia salina (L.) along a salinity and oxygen gradient in a South Australian saltfield. Freshw. Biol. 1977, 7, 461–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Savoca, S.; Grifó, G.; Panarello, G.; Albano, M.; Giacobbe, S.; Capillo, G.; Spanó, N.; Consolo, G. Modelling prey-predator interactions in Messina beachrock pools. Ecol. Model. 2020, 434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rajabi, S.; Ramazani, A.; Hamidi, M.; Naji, T. Artemia salina as a model organism in toxicity assessment of nanoparticles. DARU J. Pharm. Sci. 2015, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Han, X.; Zheng, Y.; Dai, C.; Duan, H.; Gao, M.; Ali, M.R.; Sui, L. Effect of polystyrene microplastics and temperature on growth, intestinal histology and immune responses of brine shrimp Artemia franciscana. J. Oceanol. Limnol. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wang, Y.; Mao, Z.; Zhang, M.; Ding, G.; Sun, J.; Du, M.; Liu, Q.; Cong, Y.; Jin, F.; Zhang, W.; et al. The uptake and elimination of polystyrene microplastics by the brine shrimp, Artemia parthenogenetica, and its impact on its feeding behavior and intestinal histology. Chemosphere 2019, 234, 123–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wang, Y.; Zhang, D.; Zhang, M.; Mu, J.; Ding, G.; Mao, Z.; Cao, Y.; Jin, F.; Cong, Y.; Wang, L.; et al. Effects of ingested polystyrene microplastics on brine shrimp, Artemia parthenogenetica. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 244, 715–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Abatzopoulos, T.; Beardmore, J.; Clegg, J.; Sorgeloos, P. Artemia: Basic and Applied Biology. Artemia Basic Appl. Biol. 2002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Clegg, J.S.; Trotman, C.N.A. Physiological and Biochemical Aspects of Artemia Ecology. In Artemia: Basic and Applied Biology; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2002; pp. 129–170. [Google Scholar]
  59. Dubaish, F.; Liebezeit, G. Suspended microplastics and black carbon particles in the Jade system, southern North Sea. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2013, 224, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lozano, R.L.; Mouat, J. Marine Debris in the Northeast Atlantic Region; Assessment and Priorities for Response; OSPAR Commission: London, UK, 2009; ISBN 9781906840266. [Google Scholar]
  61. Sanfilippo, M.; Capillo, G.; Spanò, N.; Manganaro, A. Evaluation of water variables in no-take zone of ustica marine protected area (Southern Tyrrhenian Sea). Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. 2016, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Salvaggio, A.; Marino, F.; Albano, M.; Pecoraro, R.; Camiolo, G.; Tibullo, D.; Bramanti, V.; Lombardo, B.M.; Saccone, S.; Mazzei, V.; et al. Toxic effects of zinc chloride on the bone development in Danio rerio (Hamilton, 1822). Front. Physiol. 2016, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Stara, A.; Pagano, M.; Capillo, G.; Fabrello, J.; Sandova, M.; Albano, M.; Zuskova, E.; Velisek, J.; Matozzo, V.; Faggio, C. Acute effects of neonicotinoid insecticides on Mytilus galloprovincialis: A case study with the active compound thiacloprid and the commercial formulation calypso 480 SC. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2020, 203, 110980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Marino, F.; Licata, L.; Albano, M.; Ieni, A.; Di Caro, G.; Macrì, B. Angioleiomyoma in a conger (Conger conger). Dis. Aquat. Organ. 2016, 119, 85–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Bergami, E.; Bocci, E.; Vannuccini, M.L.; Monopoli, M.; Salvati, A.; Dawson, K.A.; Corsi, I. Nano-sized polystyrene affects feeding, behavior and physiology of brine shrimp Artemia franciscana larvae. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2016, 123, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Windsor, F.M.; Tilley, R.M.; Tyler, C.R.; Ormerod, S.J. Microplastic ingestion by riverine macroinvertebrates. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 646, 68–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Dahms, H.T.J.; van Rensburg, G.J.; Greenfield, R. The microplastic profile of an urban African stream. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 731, 138893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Aljaibachi, R.; Callaghan, A. Impact of polystyrene microplastics on Daphnia magna mortality and reproduction in relation to food availability. PeerJ 2018, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Broeke, J.; Mateos Pérez, J.M.; Pascau, J. Image Processing with ImageJ. Available online: http://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/204900 (accessed on 8 March 2021).
  70. Frost, B.W. Effects of size and concentration of food particles on the feeding behavior of the marine planktonic copepod calanus pacificus 1. Limnol. Oceanogr. 1972, 17, 805–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. De Sá, L.C.; Oliveira, M.; Ribeiro, F.; Rocha, T.L.; Futter, M.N. Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 645, 1029–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Anbumani, S.; Kakkar, P. Ecotoxicological effects of microplastics on biota: A review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 14373–14396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Sendra, M.; Sparaventi, E.; Novoa, B.; Figueras, A. An overview of the internalization and effects of microplastics and nanoplastics as pollutants of emerging concern in bivalves. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 753, 142024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Alimi, O.S.; Farner Budarz, J.; Hernandez, L.M.; Tufenkji, N. Microplastics and Nanoplastics in Aquatic Environments: Aggregation, Deposition, and Enhanced Contaminant Transport. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 1704–1724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Granek, E.F.; Brander, S.M.; Holland, E.B. Microplastics in aquatic organisms: Improving understanding and identifying research directions for the next decade. Limnol. Oceanogr. Lett. 2020, 5, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Rist, S.; Baun, A.; Hartmann, N.B. Ingestion of micro- and nanoplastics in Daphnia magna–Quantification of body burdens and assessment of feeding rates and reproduction. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 228, 398–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Lee, K.W.; Shim, W.J.; Kwon, O.Y.; Kang, J.H. Size-dependent effects of micro polystyrene particles in the marine copepod tigriopus japonicus. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 11278–11283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Jeong, C.B.; Kang, H.M.; Lee, M.C.; Kim, D.H.; Han, J.; Hwang, D.S.; Souissi, S.; Lee, S.J.; Shin, K.H.; Park, H.G.; et al. Adverse effects of microplastics and oxidative stress-induced MAPK/Nrf2 pathway-mediated defense mechanisms in the marine copepod Paracyclopina nana. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  79. Motta, C.M.; Simoniello, P.; Arena, C.; Capriello, T.; Panzuto, R.; Vitale, E.; Agnisola, C.; Tizzano, M.; Avallone, B.; Ferrandino, I. Effects of four food dyes on development of three model species, Cucumis sativus, Artemia salina and Danio rerio: Assessment of potential risk for the environment. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 253, 1126–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Ivorra, L.; Cardoso, P.G.; Chan, S.K.; Tagulao, K.; Cruzeiro, C. Environmental characterization of 4,4′-dichlorobenzophenone in surface waters from Macao and Hong Kong coastal areas (Pearl River Delta) and its toxicity on two biological models: Artemia salina and Daphnia magna. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2019, 171, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Rosenkranz, P.; Chaudhry, Q.; Stone, V.; Fernandes, T.F. A comparison of nanoparticle and fine particle uptake by Daphnia magna. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2009, 28, 2142–2149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Kunz, A.; Walther, B.A.; Löwemark, L.; Lee, Y.C. Distribution and quantity of microplastic on sandy beaches along the northern coast of Taiwan. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 111, 126–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Barboza, L.G.A.; Gimenez, B.C.G. Microplastics in the marine environment: Current trends and future perspectives. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 97, 5–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Cole, M.; Lindeque, P.; Fileman, E.; Halsband, C.; Goodhead, R.; Moger, J.; Galloway, T.S. Microplastic ingestion by zooplankton. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 6646–6655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Jemec, A.; Horvat, P.; Kunej, U.; Bele, M.; Kržan, A. Uptake and effects of microplastic textile fibers on freshwater crustacean Daphnia magna. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 219, 201–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Wu, F.; Wang, Y.; Leung, J.Y.S.; Huang, W.; Zeng, J.; Tang, Y.; Chen, J.; Shi, A.; Yu, X.; Xu, X.; et al. Accumulation of microplastics in typical commercial aquatic species: A case study at a productive aquaculture site in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Zhu, S.; Luo, F.; Chen, W.; Zhu, B.; Wang, G. Toxicity evaluation of graphene oxide on cysts and three larval stages of Artemia salina. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 595, 101–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Zhu, S.; Xue, M.Y.; Luo, F.; Chen, W.C.; Zhu, B.; Wang, G.X. Developmental toxicity of Fe3O4 nanoparticles on cysts and three larval stages of Artemia salina. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 230, 683–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Zhang, L.; Belloc da Silva Muccillo, V.; Van Gestel, C.A.M. A combined toxicokinetics and toxicodynamics approach to investigate delayed lead toxicity in the soil invertebrate Enchytraeus crypticus. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2019, 169, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Stara, A.; Pagano, M.; Capillo, G.; Fabrello, J.; Sandova, M.; Vazzana, I.; Zuskova, E.; Velisek, J.; Matozzo, V.; Faggio, C. Assessing the effects of neonicotinoid insecticide on the bivalve mollusc Mytilus galloprovincialis. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Kokalj, A.J.; Kunej, U.; Skalar, T. Screening study of four environmentally relevant microplastic pollutants: Uptake and effects on Daphnia magna and Artemia franciscana. Chemosphere 2018, 208, 522–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Nunes, B.S.; Carvalho, F.D.; Guilhermino, L.M.; Van Stappen, G. Use of the genus Artemia in ecotoxicity testing. Environ. Pollut. 2006, 144, 453–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Anderson, D.T. Larval development and segment formation in the branchipod crustaceans limnadia stanleyana king (Conchostraca) and Artemia Salina (L.) (anostraca). Aust. J. Zool. 1966, 15, 47–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Benesch, R. Zur ontogenie und morphologie von Artemia salina L. Zool. Jb. Anat. Bd. 1969, 86, 307–458. [Google Scholar]
  95. Oliveira, P.; Barboza, L.G.A.; Branco, V.; Figueiredo, N.; Carvalho, C.; Guilhermino, L. Effects of microplastics and mercury in the freshwater bivalve Corbicula fluminea (Müller, 1774): Filtration rate, biochemical biomarkers and mercury bioconcentration. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 164, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Cole, M.; Lindeque, P.; Fileman, E.; Halsband, C.; Galloway, T.S. The impact of polystyrene microplastics on feeding, function and fecundity in the marine copepod Calanus helgolandicus. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 1130–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Drinkwater, E.D.; Robinson, E.J.H.; Hart, A.G. Keeping invertebrate research ethical in a landscape of shifting public opinion. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2019, 10, 1265–1273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Ten µm of Polybead® Blue Dyed Microspheres ingested by a Group B Artemia salina specimens at T96 treatment B5 (104 MPs/mL). (a) Normal view; (b) view of the same specimen gently crushed with the cover slide. Scale bars: 25 µm.
Figure 1. Ten µm of Polybead® Blue Dyed Microspheres ingested by a Group B Artemia salina specimens at T96 treatment B5 (104 MPs/mL). (a) Normal view; (b) view of the same specimen gently crushed with the cover slide. Scale bars: 25 µm.
Applsci 11 03352 g001
Figure 2. Ten µm of Polybead® Blue Dyed Microspheres detected in the gut and feces of Group A specimens at T48. (a) Treatment A3 (102 MPs/mL); (b) treatment A4 (103 MPs/mL); (c,d) treatment A5 (104 MPs/mL). Scale bars: 25 µm (a); 50 µm (bd).
Figure 2. Ten µm of Polybead® Blue Dyed Microspheres detected in the gut and feces of Group A specimens at T48. (a) Treatment A3 (102 MPs/mL); (b) treatment A4 (103 MPs/mL); (c,d) treatment A5 (104 MPs/mL). Scale bars: 25 µm (a); 50 µm (bd).
Applsci 11 03352 g002
Figure 3. Ten µm of Polybead® Blue Dyed Microspheres detected in the gut and feces of Group B specimens at T48. (a) Treatment B1 (1 MPs/mL); (b) treatment B4 (103 MPs/mL); (c,d): treatment B5 (104 MPs/mL). Scale bars: 10 µm (a); 25 µm (b); 50 µm (c); 75 µm (d).
Figure 3. Ten µm of Polybead® Blue Dyed Microspheres detected in the gut and feces of Group B specimens at T48. (a) Treatment B1 (1 MPs/mL); (b) treatment B4 (103 MPs/mL); (c,d): treatment B5 (104 MPs/mL). Scale bars: 10 µm (a); 25 µm (b); 50 µm (c); 75 µm (d).
Applsci 11 03352 g003
Figure 4. Artemia salina total body length at each concentration and experimental time.
Figure 4. Artemia salina total body length at each concentration and experimental time.
Applsci 11 03352 g004
Figure 5. Development of Group A Artemia salina nauplii six treatments (A0–A5) in time (0–168 h). Scale bars: 75 µm for time points T0. 250 µm for time points T24–T168.
Figure 5. Development of Group A Artemia salina nauplii six treatments (A0–A5) in time (0–168 h). Scale bars: 75 µm for time points T0. 250 µm for time points T24–T168.
Applsci 11 03352 g005
Figure 6. Development of Group B Artemia salina nauplii six treatments (B0–B5) in time (0–96 h). Scale bars: 75 µm for time points T0–T48; 250 µm for time point T96.
Figure 6. Development of Group B Artemia salina nauplii six treatments (B0–B5) in time (0–96 h). Scale bars: 75 µm for time points T0–T48; 250 µm for time point T96.
Applsci 11 03352 g006
Figure 7. Artemia salina feeding rate (%) at each concentration and experimental time.
Figure 7. Artemia salina feeding rate (%) at each concentration and experimental time.
Applsci 11 03352 g007
Figure 8. Artemia salina MPs filled area (%) at each concentration and experimental time.
Figure 8. Artemia salina MPs filled area (%) at each concentration and experimental time.
Applsci 11 03352 g008
Figure 9. 10 µm Polybead® Blue Dyed Microspheres detected in dead specimens. (a) Group B specimen; (b) Group A specimen. Scale bars: 50 µm.
Figure 9. 10 µm Polybead® Blue Dyed Microspheres detected in dead specimens. (a) Group B specimen; (b) Group A specimen. Scale bars: 50 µm.
Applsci 11 03352 g009
Table 1. Experimental Treatments Summary.
Table 1. Experimental Treatments Summary.
Experimental GroupsConcentration
N°MP/mL
A00
A11
A210
A3100
A41000
A510,000
B00
B11
B210
B3100
B41000
B510,000
Table 2. Ingested microplastics counted for each experimental group (A and B) and exposure time. Data are shown as means ± SD (n = 3).
Table 2. Ingested microplastics counted for each experimental group (A and B) and exposure time. Data are shown as means ± SD (n = 3).
Exposure Time
Experimental GroupsT0T6T12T24T48T96T168
A00000000
A10000000
A20000000
A30000000
A4000.4 ± 0.382.2 ± 1.572.4 ± 1.464.4 ± 1.444.4 ± 1.32
A501.4 ± 1.1613.2 ± 12.443.6 ± 28.7122 ± 51.8108.2 ± 38.3110.2 ± 31.4
B0000000
B10000.2 ± 0.440.6 ± 0.540.8 ± 0.83
B2001 ± 11.4 ± 0.542.8 ± 1.922.2 ± 1.48
B301.4 ± 1.947.4 ± 7.666.4 ± 4.398 ± 9.465.4 ± 4.15
B4022.4 ± 29.323.8 ± 14.972.8 ± 28.185.6 ± 9.8175 ± 49.4
B5037.6 ± 51.5157.4 ± 68.6169.4 ± 65.6300.4 ± 42306.2 ± 49.3
Table 3. Artemia salina mortality rate (%) calculated for the experimental Group A and B.
Table 3. Artemia salina mortality rate (%) calculated for the experimental Group A and B.
Exposure Time
Experimental GroupsT0T6T12T24T48T96T168
A00000.5500.551.11
A100.55000.551.111.66
A2000.5500.551.111.66
A30000.551.112.222.22
A400001.113.331.66
A50000.550.552.222.77
B000001.116.6692.22
B10000.552.228.3388.88
B200.55003.3311.1185
B300002.2212.2285.55
B40000.553.8814.4481.11
B5001.1103.3313.3382.22
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Albano, M.; Panarello, G.; Di Paola, D.; Capparucci, F.; Crupi, R.; Gugliandolo, E.; Spanò, N.; Capillo, G.; Savoca, S. The Influence of Polystyrene Microspheres Abundance on Development and Feeding Behavior of Artemia salina (Linnaeus, 1758). Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3352. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/app11083352

AMA Style

Albano M, Panarello G, Di Paola D, Capparucci F, Crupi R, Gugliandolo E, Spanò N, Capillo G, Savoca S. The Influence of Polystyrene Microspheres Abundance on Development and Feeding Behavior of Artemia salina (Linnaeus, 1758). Applied Sciences. 2021; 11(8):3352. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/app11083352

Chicago/Turabian Style

Albano, Marco, Giuseppe Panarello, Davide Di Paola, Fabiano Capparucci, Rosalia Crupi, Enrico Gugliandolo, Nunziacarla Spanò, Gioele Capillo, and Serena Savoca. 2021. "The Influence of Polystyrene Microspheres Abundance on Development and Feeding Behavior of Artemia salina (Linnaeus, 1758)" Applied Sciences 11, no. 8: 3352. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/app11083352

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