Morphometric effects of various weathered and virgin/pure microplastics on sac fry zebrafish (<i>Danio rerio)</i>

Gina M. Moreno; Keith R. Cooper; Gina M. Moreno; Keith R. Cooper

doi:10.3934/environsci.2021014

AIMS Environmental Science

2021, Volume 8, Issue 3: 204-220. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2021014

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Special Issues

Morphometric effects of various weathered and virgin/pure microplastics on sac fry zebrafish (Danio rerio)

Gina M. Moreno ¹,
Keith R. Cooper ^{1,2
,
,}

1.
Department of Biochemistry and Microbiology, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 76 Lipman Drive, New Brunswick, NJ 08901
2.
Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 88 Lipman Drive, New Brunswick, NJ 08901

Received: 19 January 2021 Accepted: 25 May 2021 Published: 08 June 2021

Microplastics (5 mm to1 nm) and plasticizers are ubiquitous worldwide in waterways, beaches, sediments, and biota. Ingestion of microplastics by various marine species and bioaccumulation of plasticizers continues to be of concern. Additionally, microplastics act as a carrier for the transport of persistent organic pollutants and some harmful microorganisms, increasing the hazard to aquatic species. Microplastics vary in composition based on their monomeric component and the specific plasticizer(s). There is a large data gap in our understanding of the biological toxicity of the different plastic polymers. The results presented here examine gross morphological alterations in sac fry zebrafish as a result of exposure to weathered microplastics and virgin/pure plastic polymers. Embryos were exposed from 3 hours post fertilization (hpf) to 96 hpf with samples of weathered microplastics from estuaries in Newark Bay, NJ, as well as commercially available virgin/pure plastics at concentrations of 1 µg/mL or 10 µg/mL. The Newark Bay microplastics were chemically identified using pyrolysis GC-MS. The three field samples were composed primarily of polyethylene (FPE), polypropylene (FPP) and polyvinyl chloride vinyl acetate mixture (FVA). Significant morphometric changes (P < 0.05) were noted between the control zebrafish and the treated groups in the embryonic zebrafish samples for the Newark Bay, weathered samples following statistical analysis of morphometric data. The commercial microplastics tested included: low density polyethylene (LDPE), medium density polyethylene (MDPE), high density polyethylene (HDPE), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), sodium polyacrylate (SPA), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyurethane (PUR), poly methyl-methacrylate (PMMA), polyethylene (co-vinyl-acetate) (PEVA), and polystyrene (co-acrylonitrile) (PSAN). Significant changes were seen in total body length in all three Newark Bay field sample microplastics, as well as virgin/pure microplastic treatment groups PET, PUR, PMMA. The pericardial sac size was found significantly altered in FPP 10 µg/mL sample plastic as well as pure microplastic treatment groups HDPE, SPA, PET, PUR, PMMA, PP, and PEVA. The interocular distance was found to be significantly changed in the pure microplastic treatment groups HDPE and PET. The pericardial sac size was the most sensitive endpoint measured followed by total body length. The least sensitive endpoint was interocular distance. These results highlight the associated toxicity with both weathered and lab standard grade microplastics exposure to treated zebrafish developing embryos. The laboratory induced cardiac and growth alterations following laboratory microplastic exposure could be examined in field populations exposed to high microplastic concentrations.
- microplastic toxicity,
- pure plastics,
- Danio rerio,
- zebrafish,
- morphometrics
Citation: Gina M. Moreno, Keith R. Cooper. Morphometric effects of various weathered and virgin/pure microplastics on sac fry zebrafish (Danio rerio)[J]. AIMS Environmental Science, 2021, 8(3): 204-220. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2021014

Related Papers:

Abstract

Microplastics (5 mm to1 nm) and plasticizers are ubiquitous worldwide in waterways, beaches, sediments, and biota. Ingestion of microplastics by various marine species and bioaccumulation of plasticizers continues to be of concern. Additionally, microplastics act as a carrier for the transport of persistent organic pollutants and some harmful microorganisms, increasing the hazard to aquatic species. Microplastics vary in composition based on their monomeric component and the specific plasticizer(s). There is a large data gap in our understanding of the biological toxicity of the different plastic polymers. The results presented here examine gross morphological alterations in sac fry zebrafish as a result of exposure to weathered microplastics and virgin/pure plastic polymers. Embryos were exposed from 3 hours post fertilization (hpf) to 96 hpf with samples of weathered microplastics from estuaries in Newark Bay, NJ, as well as commercially available virgin/pure plastics at concentrations of 1 µg/mL or 10 µg/mL. The Newark Bay microplastics were chemically identified using pyrolysis GC-MS. The three field samples were composed primarily of polyethylene (FPE), polypropylene (FPP) and polyvinyl chloride vinyl acetate mixture (FVA). Significant morphometric changes (P < 0.05) were noted between the control zebrafish and the treated groups in the embryonic zebrafish samples for the Newark Bay, weathered samples following statistical analysis of morphometric data. The commercial microplastics tested included: low density polyethylene (LDPE), medium density polyethylene (MDPE), high density polyethylene (HDPE), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), sodium polyacrylate (SPA), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyurethane (PUR), poly methyl-methacrylate (PMMA), polyethylene (co-vinyl-acetate) (PEVA), and polystyrene (co-acrylonitrile) (PSAN). Significant changes were seen in total body length in all three Newark Bay field sample microplastics, as well as virgin/pure microplastic treatment groups PET, PUR, PMMA. The pericardial sac size was found significantly altered in FPP 10 µg/mL sample plastic as well as pure microplastic treatment groups HDPE, SPA, PET, PUR, PMMA, PP, and PEVA. The interocular distance was found to be significantly changed in the pure microplastic treatment groups HDPE and PET. The pericardial sac size was the most sensitive endpoint measured followed by total body length. The least sensitive endpoint was interocular distance. These results highlight the associated toxicity with both weathered and lab standard grade microplastics exposure to treated zebrafish developing embryos. The laboratory induced cardiac and growth alterations following laboratory microplastic exposure could be examined in field populations exposed to high microplastic concentrations.

References

[1]	Bell L (2005) A world without plastics? Oil & Gas Journal 103: 17.
[2]	Geyer R, Jambeck JR, Law KL (2017) Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci Adv 3: e1700782. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1700782
[3]	ACC (2005) Plastics. In: Group PIPS, editor.
[4]	Wang J, Tan Z, Peng J, et al. (2015) The behaviors of microplastics in the marine environment. Mar Environ Res 113: 7-17. doi: 10.1016/j.marenvres.2015.10.014
[5]	Auta HS, Emenike CU, Fauziah SH (2017) Distribution and importance of microplastics in the marine environment: A review of the sources, fate, effects, and potential solutions. Environ Int 102: 165-176. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2017.02.013
[6]	Andrady AL (2011) Microplastics in the marine environment. Mar Pollut Bull 62: 1596-1605. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.05.030
[7]	Avior Y, Sagi I, Benvenisty N (2016) Pluripotent stem cells in disease modelling and drug discovery. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 17: 170-182. doi: 10.1038/nrm.2015.27
[8]	Barbosa LGA, Gimenez BCG (2015) Microplastics in the marine environment: Current trends and future perspectives. Mar Pollut Bull 97: 5-8. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.06.008
[9]	Browne MA, Crump P, Niven SJ, et al. (2011) Accumulation of Microplastic on Shorelines Woldwide: Sources and Sinks. Environ Sci Technol 45: 9175-9179. doi: 10.1021/es201811s
[10]	Cole M, Lindeque P, Halsband C, et al. (2011) Review: Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: A review. Mar Pollut Bull 62: 2588-2597. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.09.025
[11]	Horton AA, Walton A, Spurgeon DJ, et al. (2017) Microplastics in freshwater and terrestrial environments: Evaluating the current understanding to identify the knowledge gaps and future research priorities. Sci Total Environ 586: 127-141. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.190
[12]	Mason SA, Garneau D, Sutton R, et al. (2016) Microplastic pollution is widely detected in US municipal wastewater treatment plant effluent. Environ Pollut 218: 1045-1054. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.08.056
[13]	Auta HS, Emenike CU, Fauziah SH (2017) Distribution and importance of microplastics in the marine environment: A review of the sources, fate, effects, and potential solutions.
[14]	Anderson JC, Park BJ, Palace VP (2016) Microplastics in aquatic environments: Implications for Canadian ecosystems. Environ Pollut 218: 269-280. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.06.074
[15]	Jeong CB, Ji WE, Kang HM, et al. (2016) Microplastic Size- dependent toxicity, oxidative stress induction and p-JNK and p-p38 activation in the Monogonot Rotifer (Brachionus koreanus). Env Sci Tec 50: 8849-8857. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b01441
[16]	Welden NAC, Cowie PR (2016) Long-term micro plastic retention causes reduced body condition in the langoustine, Nephrops norvegicus. Environ Pollut 218: 1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.08.014
[17]	Thompson RC, Moore CJ, vom Saal FS, et al. (2009) Plastics, the Environment and Human Health: Current Consensus and Future Trends. Philos T Bio Sci 364: 2153-2166. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2009.0053
[18]	Browne Mark A, Niven Stewart J, Galloway Tamara S, et al. (2013) Microplastic Moves Pollutants and Additives to Worms, Reducing Functions Linked to Health and Biodiversity. Curr Biol 23: 2388-2392. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2013.10.012
[19]	Lithner D, Damberg J, Dave G, et al. (2009) Leachates from plastic consumer products - Screening for toxicity with Daphnia magna. Chemosphere 74: 1195-1200. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2008.11.022
[20]	Oehlmann J, Schulte-Oehlmann U, Kloas W, et al. (2009) A Critical Analysis of the Biological Impacts of Plasticizers on Wildlife. Philos T Bio Sci 364: 2047-2062. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0242
[21]	Rochman CM, Lewison RL, Eriksen M, et al. (2014) Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in fish tissue may be an indicator of plastic contamination in marine habitats. Sci Total Environ 476: 622-633. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.01.058
[22]	Teuten EL, Saquing JM, Knappe DRU, et al. (2009) Transport and Release of Chemicals from Plastics to the Environment and to Wildlife. Philos T Bio Sci 364: 2027-2045. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0284
[23]	Lee KW, Shim WJ, Kwon OY, et al. (2013) Size-Dependent Effects of Micro Polystyrene Particles in the Marine Copepod Tigriopus japonicus. Environ Sci Technol 47: 11278-11283. doi: 10.1021/es401932b
[24]	Eriksen M, Mason S, Wilson S, et al. (2013) Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes. Mar Pollut Bull 77: 177-182. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.10.007
[25]	Kimmel CB, Ballard WW, Kimmel SR, et al. (1995) Stages of embryonic development of the zebrafish. Dev Dynam 203: 253-310. doi: 10.1002/aja.1002030302
[26]	Leslie HA, Brandsma SH, van Velzen MJM, et al. (2017) Microplastics en route: Field measurements in the Dutch river delta and Amsterdam canals, wastewater treatment plants, North Sea sediments and biota. Environ Int 101: 133-142. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2017.01.018
[27]	Jantzen CE, Annunziato KA, Bugel SM, et al. (2016) PFOS, PFNA, and PFOA sub-lethal exposure to embryonic zebrafish have different toxicity profiles in terms of morphometrics, behavior and gene expression. Aquat Toxicol 175: 160-170. doi: 10.1016/j.aquatox.2016.03.026
[28]	Samaee SM, Manteghi N, Yokel RA, et al. (2018) Morphometric characteristics and time to hatch as efficacious indicators for potential nanotoxicity assay in zebrafish. Environ Toxicol Chem 37: 3063-3076. doi: 10.1002/etc.4266
[29]	Sehonova P, Plhalova L, Blahova J, et al. (2016) The effect of tramadol hydrochloride on early life stages of fish. Environ Toxicol Pharm 44: 151-157. doi: 10.1016/j.etap.2016.05.006
[30]	Cohen JH, Internicola AM, Mason RA, et al. (2019) Observations and Simulations of Microplastic Debris in a Tide, Wind, and Freshwater-Driven Estuarine Environment: the Delaware Bay. Environ Sci Technol 53: 14204-14211. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b04814
[31]	Ravit B, Cooper K, Moreno G, et al. (2017) Microplastics in urban New Jersey freshwaters: distribution, chemical identification, and biological affects. AIMS Environ Sci 4: 809-826. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2017.6.809
[32]	Besseling E, Redondo-Hasselerharm P, Foekema EM, et al. (2019) Quantifying ecological risks of aquatic micro- and nanoplastic. Crit Rev Env Sci Tec 49: 32-80. doi: 10.1080/10643389.2018.1531688
[33]	Jantzen C, Annunziato K, Cooper K (2016) Behavioral, morphometric, and gene expression effects in adult zebrafish (Danio rerio) embryonically exposed to PFOA, PFOS, and PFNA. Aquat Toxicol 180: 123-130. doi: 10.1016/j.aquatox.2016.09.011
[34]	Qiang L, Cheng J (2019) Exposure to microplastics decreases swimming competence in larval zebrafish (Danio rerio). Ecotox Environ Safe 176: 226-233. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.03.088
[35]	Duan Z, Duan X, Zhao S, et al. (2020) Barrier function of zebrafish embryonic chorions against microplastics and nanoplastics and its impact on embryo development. J Hazard Mater 395: 122621. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122621
[36]	Sendra M, Pereiro P, Yeste MP, et al. (2021) Size matters: Zebrafish (Danio rerio) as a model to study toxicity of nanoplastics from cells to the whole organism. Environ Pollut 268: 115769. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115769
[37]	Pedersen AF, Meyer DN, Petriv A-MV, et al. (2020) Nanoplastics impact the zebrafish (Danio rerio) transcriptome: Associated developmental and neurobehavioral consequences. Environ Pollut 266: 115090. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115090
[38]	Tagg AS, Harrison JP, Ju-Nam Y, et al. (2017) Fenton's reagent for the rapid and efficient isolation of microplastics from wastewater. Chem Commun 53: 372-375. doi: 10.1039/C6CC08798A
[39]	Hurley RR, Lusher AL, Olsen M, et al. (2018) Validation of a Method for Extracting Microplastics from Complex, Organic-Rich, Environmental Matrices. Environ Sci Technol 52: 7409-7417. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b01517
[40]	Andrady AL (2003) Plastics and the Environment. 1; Andrady AL, editor. Place of publication not identified: Wiley Interscience Imprint.
[41]	Coffin S, Dudley S, Taylor A, et al. (2018) Comparisons of analytical chemistry and biological activities of extracts from North Pacific gyre plastics with UV-treated and untreated plastics using in vitro and in vivo models. Environ Int 121: 942-954. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.10.012
[42]	Lu Y, Zhang Y, Deng Y, et al. (2016) Uptake and Accumulation of Polystyrene Microplastics in Zebrafish (Danio rerio) and Toxic Effects in Liver. Environ Sci Technol 50: 4054-4060. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b00183
[43]	Malafaia G, de Souza AM, Pereira AC, et al. (2020) Developmental toxicity in zebrafish exposed to polyethylene microplastics under static and semi-static aquatic systems. Sci Total Environ 700: 134867. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134867
[44]	Veneman WJ, Spaink HP, Brun NR, et al. (2017) Pathway analysis of systemic transcriptome responses to injected polystyrene particles in zebrafish larvae. Aquat Toxicol 190: 112-120. doi: 10.1016/j.aquatox.2017.06.014
[45]	Van Duuren BL (1989) Comparison of potency of human carcinogens: Vinyl chloride, chloromethylmethyl ether and bis(chloromethyl)ether. Environ Res 49: 143-151. doi: 10.1016/S0013-9351(89)80059-3

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2021 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)