Due to the ubiquity of microplastic contamination in coastal waters, there is potential for adverse impacts to organism development. One organism of interest is the daggerblade grass shrimp, Palaemon pugio, an ecologically important species in estuaries along the east coast of North America. We exposed larval grass shrimp to virgin polyethylene microbeads (35 and 58 µm) at a high (0.375 and 1.95 mg/L), medium (0.0375 and 0.195 mg/L), and a low concentration (0.00375 and 0.0195 mg/L), respectively for 23 days to assess mortality, transformation time from larval to juvenile stage, and weight. Average percent mortality was 3.7 to 4.8 times higher in the experimental treatments compared to controls. The greatest proportion of mortality was observed in the first 11 days. Median time for transformation ranged from 20.2 to 20.8 days. Shrimp exposed to the 35 µm beads in the high treatment (20.2 days) transformed significantly faster than the control shrimp (20.8 days). Although development was not delayed and size of the shrimp did not differ, the acute toxicity of microplastics on grass shrimp is a concern due to their role in energy cycling within tidal-creeks. These findings suggest potential population and community level effects following microplastic exposure.
The presence of microplastic particles in coastal waters has been a growing concern over the past decade due to their potential adverse impacts on the health of wildlife and humans alike, review by Ref.1. Although sources of these particles vary and may be site specific, several studies have suggested that the degradation of macroplastic litter, producing secondary microplastics, is an important contributor2,3,4,5. Microplastic particles in coastal waters can also originate from commercial sources where the plastic particle is intentionally manufactured to be microscopic (primary microplastic)6. Regardless of source, the overall abundance of microplastics in coastal areas can vary depending on whether researchers sample sediments or surface water. Microplastic concentrations reported in coastal sediments range between 0 to 8720 particle/kg7,8, and in coastal waters range between 0.002 to 468,00 particles/m3 (0 to 468 particles/L)7,9,10. Sizes of microplastics detected in coastal waters range from the nano to micrometer scale1,11, with varying classifications (fragment, fiber, bead, and tire wear particle)12,13. The presence of microplastics in the environment is likely to increase due to the ongoing increases in plastic production, with a total global production of 368 M tonnes in 201914.
Due to their small size, microplastics can be ingested by a wide range of organisms including fish, crustaceans, and zooplanktonic organisms15,16,17,18,19, filter-feeding and suspension-feeding organisms, such as mussels (Mytilus edulis)20,21,22, oysters (Crassostrea virginica)23, and copepods (Tigriopus japonicus)24,25 because their size range overlaps with that of common prey items26. While the previously mentioned studies reported microplastics in biota, laboratory studies have aimed to understand the toxicological impacts of microplastics to assess endpoints such as growth, reproduction, and mortality17,27. Gray and Weinstein17 attributed toxicity to the size and shape of the particle, suggesting that the physical attributes of the particle are an important determinant in the toxicological response. Because microplastic particles exhibit a large surface-area-to-volume ratio, it is also possible that the toxicological responses observed in the lab may differ with the use of weathered or secondary microplastics due to the leaching of additives and sorbed environmental contaminants from the particles28. In any case, it is important to consider the toxicological responses to both virgin (commercially produced and not previously exposed to environmental conditions) and weathered (environmentally-derived) microplastic particles to discern toxicity due to physical attributes of the particles from those that may be due to the leaching of additives and sorbed contaminants.
Aquatic invertebrates, specifically crustaceans, play a key role in maintaining the health of their respective habitats. Any adverse effect of microplastics on these organisms may have impacts at the ecosystem level. Along the east coast of North America, grass shrimp (Palaemon spp.) are an ecologically important estuarine species, playing a vital role in energy cycling within tidal creek-salt marsh habitats29. Grass shrimp account for ~ 83% of the total nekton biomass30. Grass shrimp are consumed by various predators31, including commercially and recreationally important species of seafood. Given their epibenthic lifestyle within these tidal creek-salt marsh systems, grass shrimp are likely to encounter relatively high levels of microplastic particles. And, because of their key role in salt marsh habitats, negative implications of the microplastic exposure to this species could include decreased biodiversity and impacts on commercially and recreationally important fisheries32.
An abundance of microplastics present in the environment are in surface waters, where zooplankton such as larval grass shrimp feed, increasing the chances of exposure and ingestion33. Gray and Weinstein17 demonstrated that microplastic fragments, fibers, and beads can influence adult grass shrimp mortality via ingestion following an acute or short-term exposure (3 h). Leads et al.34 found that microplastic ingestion did not alter grass shrimp susceptibility to bacterial infection (Vibrio campbellii). These findings demonstrate that microplastic exposure can have varying effects depending on the end-point measured (mortality vs immune response). However, there is no information about the impact microplastics may have on the transformation of grass shrimp from the larval stage to the juvenile stage. Early developmental stages of organisms exhibit a higher sensitivity to toxicants than other life stages, which may consequently adversely affect population levels35. The impact of microplastics on the development of aquatic organisms is not as well-understood as other toxicity endpoints, such a mortality, immune response, and gene expression36. Particles less than 100 µm are of interest since in the natural environment, microplastic particles less than 100 µm is more abundant than those larger than 100 µm 37. Gray and Weinstein17 found that there was low mortality (0 to 10%) when adult grass shrimp were exposed to polyethylene (PE) microbeads less than 100 µm (35 and 58 µm). Due to their low mortality to adults, those particle sizes were used to investigate whether PE microbeads impacted larval grass shrimp development. Given the ecological importance of the Palaemon spp. for salt marsh ecosystems and the vulnerability of coastal habitats to anthropogenic disturbance, it is important to understand how microplastics may impact their development.
In the present study, we exposed larval grass shrimp (2 days post hatch) to virgin PE microbeads. PE is one of the most commonly used plastics globally, and consequently the most encountered polymer type in marine environments38. Size fractions used were the least toxic to adult grass shrimp based on previous work conducted by Gray and Weinstein17. We aimed to assess if exposure to virgin PE microbeads at a low, medium, and high concentration with two different particle sizes would result in acute toxicity or have any effect on the transformation of grass shrimp from larval to juvenile stage.
Materials and methods
Grass shrimp collection
Gravid adult grass shrimp were collected from Leadenwah Creek, Wadmalaw Island, South Carolina (USA; 32° 38′, 50.6″ N, 80° 13′,14.0″ W) with a dip net. Leadenwah Creek is a tidal tributary not impacted by urban disturbance. This site also serves as a long‐term ecological monitoring reference site39, and organisms collected from this site have been used in previous laboratory assays17,34,40. Gravid shrimp with embryos in stage VI (oval eyespots, rapid heartbeat)41 were transported to the Aquatic Toxicology Laboratory at The Citadel, Military College of South Carolina (Charleston, SC, USA). Shrimp were held at 24 °C in aquatic tanks (~ 19 L) containing filtered seawater from Charleston Harbor with an 8 h light:16 h dark photoperiod. Gravid shrimp that were expected to hatch within 2 days post collection were placed into an enclosed mesh cage within a separate tank (~ 19 L). Once hatched, the larval shrimp were collected using a dip net and transferred to a separate holding tank (~ 19 L). Larval shrimp were allowed to acclimate for 48 h prior to microbead exposure. Laval grass shrimp can survive for ~ 10 days without food but can only transition to the second larval instar42,43. As a result, shrimp larvae were fed brine shrimp nauplii twice daily during their acclimation period and throughout the developmental assays44. Foundational work published by Ref.43 demonstrated the ability of larval grass shrimp to consume nauplii two days post hatch. Larval shrimp are typically 2.6 mm in length after hatching but can range between 6 to 8 mm in length at metamorphosis45,46. Mean brine shrimp nauplii length and width ranges between (517 to 618 µm) and (144 to 177 µm), respectively48.
To assess the effect of PE microbead exposure on larval grass shrimp development, two assays using different particle sizes (sizes 32–38 and 53–63 µm; 1.02 to 1.03 g/cc) were conducted with fluorescent green PE microbeads purchased from Cospheric (Santa Barbara, CA). Microbead sizes will be referred to by the median size fraction (35 and 58 µm), hereafter. Microbeads were purchased in dry form and did not come in any detergent or antimicrobial solutions. Each assay consisted of a low (62.5 particles/L), medium (625 particles/L), and high (6250 particles/L) treatments. Control (no microbead) solutions were also concurrently tested. Treatment concentrations reflected both relevant and above relevant microplastic concentrations in nature. Particle concentrations were estimated based on weight. For the 35 µm treatment the low, medium, and high treatments were 0.00375, 0.0375, and 0.375 mg/L, respectively. For the 58 µm treatment the low, medium, and high treatments were 0.0195, 0.195, and 1.95 mg/L, respectively. Since we used three concentrations that increased on a log scale we classified them as low, medium, and high treatments. Hereafter, concentrations will be reported by designated classification (low, medium, and high.
Test chambers (glass beakers; 250 mL) contained 15 larval shrimp and 200 mL of solution. There were three replicate chambers per treatment and two replicate chambers for the control treatments. Since each replicate had the same number of grass shrimp, this allows for comparisons to be made between control and experimental treatments. Slight aeration (~ 1 bubble per second) was used to ensure microbeads remained suspended throughout the solution. Water changes (100%) occurred every 48 h with new microbeads added to each respective treatment. Water quality was monitored and recorded every 2 days prior to water changes. Dissolved oxygen, pH, and salinity were 7.76 ± 0.42 mg/L, 7.8 ± 0.2, and 28.7 ± 1.6 ‰, respectively (mean ± SD). Temperature was held at a constant 24 °C. Shrimp were fed a diet of newly hatched Artemia nauplii (1 drop into each chamber) once daily29.
Assays began when larvae were 2 days post-hatch, and the exposure continued until 90% of the shrimp larvae successfully transformed to the juvenile stage, which typically occurs between 15 and 22 days in the laboratory48. Assays were terminated when > 90% of the shrimp larvae successfully transformed to the juvenile stage. Determination that shrimp had transformed was based phenotypic observations designated by the transition from upside down and backwards swimming during the larval stage to dorsal side up and forward swimming in the juvenile stage, we did not assess molting stages and number of molts to reach the juvenile state49,50. The number of larvae successfully transforming were monitored daily. Mortality was monitored at each water change. At the conclusion of the study, juvenile shrimp were air dried overnight and weighed individually on a microbalance.
The median time to transformation was determined using probit analysis followed by the LC50 ratio test to test for differences among treatments51. Differences in shrimp weight at the end of the experiment and percent mortality were assessed using a Kruskal–Wallis Test with a Pairwise Wilcoxon post-hoc analysis. All analyses were conducted using SAS Enterprise 4.3 and R Studio v3.5. All figures were made in GraphPad Prism v9.2.0.
For the 35 µm microbead experiment, average mortality from the experimental treatments was 4 to 4.5 times higher than the control treatment (6.7%) (p = 0.01). Average percent mortality from the low, medium, and high treatments was 31.1%, 26.7%, and 31.1%, respectively (Fig. 1A). Percent mortality in each treatment was significantly higher than the control (p < 0.01 in each treatment; Fig. 1A). Mortality was highest during the first half of transformation time (0–11 days) (Fig. 2A). Larval transformation to the juvenile stage was first evident on Day 19 in the control and all experimental treatments. Median transformation time was significantly faster in the high treatment (20.2 days [20.0–20.5 days]) (medial transformation time [95% Confidence Interval]) relative to the control (20.8 days [20.5–21.0 days]) (Table 1). Median transformation times in the low and medium treatments ranged from 20.6 to 20.9 days but did not significantly differ from that of the control (Table 1). Mean juvenile shrimp weights ranged from 0.219 ± 0.041 mg in the controls to 0.231 ± 0.041 mg in high treatment (Fig. 3A). Despite there being larger shrimp in the high treatment, there was no significant difference in weights among the various treatments at the conclusion of the experiment on Day 23 (Fig. 3A, χ2 = 3.43, DF = 3, p = 0.33).
For the 58 µm microbead experiment, experimental treatment exhibited percent mortality that was 3.3 to 3.9 times higher than the controls. The control mortality was the same as what was observed in the 35 µm study (Fig. 1B). Percent mortality in the experimental treatments was generally lower than that observed in the 35 µm size fractions with the low, medium, and high average mortality being 26.7%, 24.4%, and 22.2%, respectively (Fig. 1B). However, the percent mortality from the low and medium treatments was significantly higher than the control (p < 0.01, p < 0.01; Fig. 1B). As observed in the 35 µm treatments, mortality was highest in the first 11 days of the exposure (Fig. 2B). Similar to the larval shrimp in the 35 µm treatment, larval transformation to the juvenile stage was first evident on Day 19 across all treatments. There was no significant difference in median transformation time among the three treatments relative to the controls (p > 0.05; Table 1). The median time to transformation ranged from 20.5 days [20.3–20.7 days] in the low and medium treatments to 20.8 days [20.5–21.0 days] in the control (Table 1). Mean shrimp weights ranged from 0.221 ± 0.034 mg in the medium treatment to 0.244 ± 0.054 mg in the high treatment (Fig. 3B). Similar to the 35 µm study, we observed no significant difference in shrimp weight at the conclusion of the experiment on day 23 (Fig. 3B; χ2 = 4.23, DF = 3, p = 0.24). When comparing mortality between the 35 and 58 µm size fractions, we observed no difference among treatment groups (p > 0.05).
We did not find any evidence that the presence of virgin PE microbeads in either the 35 or 58 µm size ranges experimental treatments delayed the developmental transition of the larval grass shrimp to the juvenile state. It is important to note that medium and high concentrations used in the study were higher than those reported in coastal surface waters of South Carolina (7 to 31 microplastic particles/L)2, with the low concentration being more environmentally relevant and comparable with levels of microplastics reported in coastal waters of Portugal, Australia, Japan, and Indonesia9,52,53,54. However, the concentration used in the medium treatment (625 particles/L) was comparable to levels reported by Hosseini et al.10 where average surface water concentrations ranged between 86 to 362 particles/L, and the dominant particle type was PE. The high treatment (6250 particles/L) concentration of particles are not representative of environmental levels reported in coastal waters but is comparable to levels reported in stormwater, sweepsand, and washwater (~ 4500 particles/L)55, indicating levels used in the present study can be found in the environment.
Exposure to both size fractions of microbeads were acutely toxicity to larval grass shrimp, with mortality ranging from 22 to 31% (Fig. 1). Although percent mortality did not differ between the two size fractions, there were higher mortality reported for the 35 µm size fraction exposures. By contrast, Gray and Weinstein17 reported < 10% mortality in adult grass shrimp exposed to PE microbeads of the same size fraction used in the present study, with 35 µm particles exhibiting no mortality17. These results suggest that PE microbeads are more toxic to larval grass shrimp than adults. Relatively higher sensitivity to toxicant exposure for larval grass shrimp compared to adults has also been reported for malathion56, permethrin57, chlorothalonil58, and PBDE59. Our results demonstrate that sensitivity to toxicants like microplastics can depend on the age of the organisms. However, this does not necessarily mean that adverse effects such as delayed development, reduced growth and emergence as observed by Ziajahormi et al.60 and Redondo-Hasselerharm et al.61 cannot be seen with other sediment dwelling invertebrates. The greatest mortality was observed over the first half of exposure (day 0 to day 11) (Fig. 2). There may be a specific time range in development where sensitivity to contaminants like microplastics is greater based on our results. This warrants further investigation. We did not observe any microbeads being ingested by the shrimp that may have influenced mortality as seen in Gray and Weinstein17. It is possible these microplastics caused a stress response that caused irreversible cellular damage resultng in mortality, as observed by Lehtiniemi et al.62.
Findings from the present study highlight that microbead exposure in aquatic habitats does not necessarily mean that organism development is delayed. Studies having reported adverse effects on development in other organisms utilized concentrations higher than those used in the present study. For example, C. Martínez-Gomez et al.63 found that for sea urchin (Paracentrotus lividus) development, the highest percentages of larval development abnormalities were at the highest concentration (5 g of high-density PE particles/L). By contrast, the highest concentrations used in the current study were 0.375 mg/L and 1.95 mg/L for the 35 µm and 58 µm microbead assays, respectively. Our findings are consistent with previous studies reported in the literature that used virgin microbeads that resulted in no adverse impact on organism development. For example, Khosrovyan and Kahru64 found that virgin polyamide microplastics at environmentally relevant concentrations had no adverse effect on development and growth of the harlequin fly, Chironomus riparius. Similarly, Le Bihanic65 found that embryos and larvae of the ricefish, Oryzias melastigma demonstrated no adverse effects on survival, hatching, development, and behavior when exposed to virgin microplastics. Lastly, LeMoine et al.66 found that exposure of the early life stage zebrafish (Danio rerio) to PE microplastics resulted in no detrimental effects of these particles on larval development, growth, or metabolism.
In comparison to those studies using virgin microplastics, Le Bihanic65 found that Oryzias melastigma embryos and larvae exposed to perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), benzo[a]pyrene (BaP), or benzophenone-3 (BP3) sorbed to microplastics resulted in decreased embryonic survival, prevented hatching, reduced growth, increased developmental anomalies and abnormal behavior. Collectively, these results suggest that microplastics by themselves may not be solely responsible for developmental effects. Instead, contaminants sorbed to the surface of microplastics may be more influential. A similar claim was made by Leads et al.34 regarding the acute toxicity of virgin microplastics on adult grass shrimp. This suggests that the hazards posed by virgin microplastics may be different compared to those microplastics present in the environment. From an experimental perspective, virgin microplastics are ideal to use because they are free of sorbed environmental contaminants, and any chemical additives (e.g. plasticizers) that may leach may be identified from technical specifications provided by the manufacturer. Also, important to note, is that 65% of studies that have assessed microplastic effects on organisms have utilized PE microbeads ≥ 10 µm36. Utilizing virgin microplastics allows researchers to determine the effect of the microplastic particle shape, size, and polymer composition alone without confounding factors of sorbed contaminants and/or leaching chemical additives.
Of note was the significantly faster median transformation time in larval grass shrimp exposed to the high treatment of 35 µm microbeads. A similar trend was observed, albeit not significant, for the 58 µm microbeads, as well as during preliminary microbead exposure trials (unpublished data). Freeman67 found that the nutritional state (larvae continually fed or fed on the first two days of the molt cycle) resulted in larger growth, indicating that nutritional state is a strong regulator of tissue growth. Although there was no significant difference in weight among shrimp, our results regarding faster transformation time observed in the high 35 µm treatment may be explained by the higher mortality seen in that treatment that possibly afforded greater food availability to shrimp that survived as they did not have to compete with more individuals for resources. A follow up to this work would be the inclusion of controlled feeding rates in to the design to determine if transformation is a result of feeding or plastic exposure. Future work investigating this phenomenon is necessary moving forward as individuals may not grow larger due to microplastic exposure but will develop faster as a result of microplastics, potentially causing community level effects (altered ecosystem function and organic matter cycling) when considering the role grass shrimp play as detritivores in estuarine habitats. Microplastics affect individuals, then the population, before finally disrupting community structure and function68.
In the present study, chronic exposure to virgin PE microbeads did not delay development or result in juvenile weight differences for grass shrimp. Microplastics were acutely toxic to larval shrimp with up to 31% mortality observed. Due to the ubiquitous presence and continuous release of microplastics into coastal waters, populations of grass shrimp that decline due to exposure can disrupt community structure and ecosystem functions of key ecological processes (energy and organic matter cycling) in salt-marsh habitats. Although our assessment focused on virgin microplastics, environmental plastics that are weathered contain various contaminants sorbed to their surface. Consequently, future research should be cautious of how they interpret their findings when using weathered plastics instead of virgin, as effects from weathered plastics may be largely influenced by co-contaminants sorbed to the plastics. Assessments that utilize virgin plastics are useful for understanding the ecological implication of microplastic pollution as a single entity without having to consider co-contaminant exposures.
Basicdata are publicly available on FigShare at Development_Study_Raw_Data: https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Developmental_Study_raw_data/17041550, https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Developmental_Study_raw_data_2_xlsx/18516188/1.
Sharma, S. & Chatterjee, S. Microplastic pollution, a threat to marine ecosystem and human health: A short review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 24(27), 21530–21547 (2017).
Gray, A. D., Wertz, H., Leads, R. R. & Weinstein, J. E. Microplastic in two South Carolina Estuaries: Occurrence, distribution, and composition. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 128, 223–233 (2018).
Weinstein, J. E., Dekle, J. L., Leads, R. R. & Hunter, R. A. Degradation of bio-based and biodegradable plastics in a salt marsh habitat: Another potential source of microplastics in coastal waters. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 160, 111518 (2020).
Robin, R. S. et al. Holistic assessment of microplastics in various coastal environmental matrices, southwest coast of India. Sci. Total Environ. 703, 134947 (2020).
Kwon, O. Y., Kang, J. H., Hong, S. H. & Shim, W. J. Spatial distribution of microplastic in the surface waters along the coast of Korea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 155, 110729 (2020).
Fendall, L. S. & Sewell, M. A. Contributing to marine pollution by washing your face: Microplastics in facial cleansers. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 58(8), 1225–1228 (2009).
Hantoro, I., Löhr, A. J., Van Belleghem, F. G., Widianarko, B. & Ragas, A. M. Microplastics in coastal areas and seafood: Implications for food safety. Food Addit. Contam. Part A 36(5), 674–711 (2019).
Retama, I. et al. Microplastics in tourist beaches of Huatulco Bay, Pacific coast of southern Mexico. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 113(1–2), 530–535 (2016).
Frias, J. P. G. L., Otero, V. & Sobral, P. Evidence of microplastics in samples of zooplankton from Portuguese coastal waters. Mar. Environ. Res. 95, 89–95 (2014).
Hosseini, R., Sayadi, M. H., Aazami, J. & Savabieasfehani, M. Accumulation and distribution of microplastics in the sediment and coastal water samples of Chabahar Bay in the Oman Sea, Iran. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 160, 111682 (2020).
Andrady, A. L. Persistence of Plastic Litter in the Oceans. Marine Anthropogenic Litter 57–72 (Springer, 2015).
Leads, R. R. & Weinstein, J. E. Occurrence of tire wear particles and other microplastics within the tributaries of the Charleston Harbor Estuary, South Carolina, USA. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 145, 569–582 (2019).
Nor, N. H. M. & Obbard, J. P. Microplastics in Singapore’s coastal mangrove ecosystems. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 79(1–2), 278–283 (2014).
Plastics Europe. Plastics—The Facts 2017. (Plastics Europe, 2017).
Lusher, A. L., Welden, N. A., Sobral, P., & Cole, M. Sampling, isolating and identifying microplastics ingested by fish and invertebrates. In Analysis of Nanoplastics and Microplastics in Food 119–148. (CRC Press, 2020).
Murray, F. & Cowie, P. R. Plastic contamination in the decapod crustacean Nephrops norvegicus (Linnaeus, 1758). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62(6), 1207–1217 (2011).
Gray, A. D. & Weinstein, J. E. Size-and shape-dependent effects of microplastic particles on adult daggerblade grass shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 36(11), 3074–3080 (2017).
Au, S. Y., Bruce, T. F., Bridges, W. C. & Klaine, S. J. Responses of Hyalella azteca to acute and chronic microplastic exposures. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 34(11), 2564–2572 (2015).
Cole, M. et al. Microplastic ingestion by zooplankton. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47(12), 6646–6655 (2013).
Woods, M. N., Stack, M. E., Fields, D. M., Shaw, S. D. & Matrai, P. A. Microplastic fiber uptake, ingestion, and egestion rates in the blue mussel (Mytilus edulis). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 137, 638–645 (2018).
Scott, N. et al. Particle characteristics of microplastics contaminating the mussel Mytilus edulis and their surrounding environments. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 146, 125–133 (2019).
Van Cauwenberghe, L., Claessens, M., Vandegehuchte, M. B. & Janssen, C. R. Microplastics are taken up by mussels (Mytilus edulis) and lugworms (Arenicola marina) living in natural habitats. Environ. Pollut. 199, 10e17 (2015).
Waite, H. R., Donnelly, M. J. & Walters, L. J. Quantity and types of microplastics in the organic tissues of the eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica and Atlantic mud crab Panopeus herbstii from a Florida estuary. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 129(1), 179–185 (2018).
Quanbin, L. et al. Uptake and elimination of microplastics by Tigriopus japonicus and its impact on feeding behavior. Asian J. Ecotoxicol. 4, 184–191. https://doi.org/10.7524/AJE.1673-5897.20191216002 (2020).
Galloway, T. S. & Lewis, C. N. Marine microplastics spell big problems for future generations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113(9), 2331e2333 (2016).
Galloway, T. S., Cole, M. & Lewis, C. Interactions of microplastic debris throughout the marine ecosystem. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 0116. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0116 (2017).
Carlos de Sá, L., Luís, L. G. & Guilhermino, L. Effects of microplastics on juveniles of the common goby (Pomatoschistus microps): Confusion with prey, reduction of the predatory performance and efficiency, and possible influence of developmental conditions. Environ. Pollut. 196, 359–362 (2015).
Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Halsband, C. & Galloway, T. S. Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: A review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62(12), 2588–2597 (2011).
Key, P. B., Chung, K. W., West, J. B., Pennington, P. L. & DeLorenzo, M. E. Developmental and reproductive effects in grass shrimp (Palaemon pugio) following acute larval exposure to a thin oil sheen and ultraviolet light. Aquat. Toxicol. 228, 105651 (2020).
Allen, D. M., Harding, J. M., Stroud, K. B. & Yozzo, K. L. Movements and site fidelity of grass shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio and P. vulgaris) in salt marsh intertidal creeks. Mar. Biol. 162(6), 1275–1285 (2015).
Kunz, A. K., Ford, M. & Pung, O. J. Behavior of the grass shrimp Palaemonetes pugio and its response to the presence of the predatory fish Fundulus heteroclitus. Am. Midl. Nat. 155, 286–294. https://doi.org/10.1674/0003-0031 (2006).
Barbier, E. B. et al. The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecol. Monogr. 81, 169–193 (2011).
Cozar, A. et al. Plastic debris in the open ocean. PNAS 111, 10239e10244. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1314705111 (2014).
Leads, R. R., Burnett, K. G. & Weinstein, J. E. The effect of microplastic ingestion on survival of the grass shrimp Palaemonetes pugio (Holthuis, 1949) challenged with Vibrio campbellii. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 38(10), 2233–2242 (2019).
Beiras, R., Duran, I., Bellas, J. & Sanchez-Marín, P. Biological effects of contaminants: Paracentrotus lividus sea urchin embryo test with marine sediment elutriates. Int. Counc. Explor. Sea. Technol. Environ. Mar. Sci. 51, 113 (2012).
Kögel, T., Bjorøy, Ø., Toto, B., Bienfait, A. M. & Sanden, M. Micro-and nanoplastic toxicity on aquatic life: Determining factors. Sci. Total Environ. 709, 136050 (2020).
Lindeque, P. K. et al. Are we underestimating microplastic abundance in the marine environment? A comparison of microplastic capture with nets of different mesh-size. Environ Pollut. 265(Pt A), 114721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114721 (2020).
Andrady, A. L. Microplastics in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62(8), 1596e1605 (2011).
Leight, A. K., Scott, G. I., Fulton, M. H. & Daugomah, J. W. Long term monitoring of grass shrimp Palaemonetes spp. Population metrics at sites with agricultural runoff influences 1, 2. Integr. Comp. Biol. 45(1), 143–150 (2005).
Weinstein, J. E. & Garner, T. R. Piperonyl butoxide enhances the bioconcentration and photoinduced toxicity of fluoranthene and benzo [a] pyrene to larvae of the grass shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio). Aquat. Toxicol. 87(1), 28–36 (2008).
Key, P. B., Chung, K. W., Hoguet, J., Sapozhnikova, Y. & DeLorenzo, M. E. Toxicity of the mosquito control insecticide phenothrin to three life stages of the grass shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio). J. Environ. Sci. Health B 46(5), 426–431 (2011).
Broad, A. C. Larval development of Palaemonetes pugio Holthuis. Biol. Bull. 112, 144–161 (1957).
Broad, A. C. The relationship between diet and larval development of Palaemonetes. Biol. Bull. 112, 162–170 (1957).
Sandifer, P. A. Effects of temperature and salinity on larval development of grass shrimp, Palaemonetes vulgaris (Decapoda, Caridea). Fish. Bull. 71(1), 115 (1973).
Boston, M. A. & Provenzano, A. J. Attempted hybridization of the grass shrimp Palaemonetes (Caridea, palaemonidae) with an evaluation of taxonomic characters of juveniles. Estuaries 5(3), 165–174 (1982).
Anderson, G. S. Species profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Gulf of Mexico): Grass shrimp (No. 4). The Service. (1985).
Vikas, P. A. et al. Unraveling the effects of live microalgal enrichment on Artemia nauplii. Indian J. Fish. 59(4), 111–121 (2012).
Provenzano, A. J., Schmitz, K. B. & Boston, M. A. Survival, duration of larval stages, and size of postlarvae of grass shrimp, Palaemonetes pugio, reared from Kepone® contaminated and uncontaminated populations in Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 1(4), 239–244 (1978).
Johnson, W. S., & Allen, D. M. Zooplankton of the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts: A Guide to Their Identification and Ecology. (JHU Press, 2012).
Hubschman, J. H. The development and function of neurosecretory sites in the eyestalks of larval Palaemonetes (Decapoda: Natantia) (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1962).
Wheeler, M. W., Park, R. M. & Bailer, A. J. Comparing median lethal concentration values using confidence interval overlap or ratio tests. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. Int. J. 25(5), 1441–1444 (2006).
Isobe, A., Kubo, K., Tamura, Y., Nakashima, E. & Fujii, N. Selective transport of microplastics and mesoplastics by drifting in coastal waters. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 89(1–2), 324–330 (2014).
Syakti, A. D. et al. Beach macro-litter monitoring and floating microplastic in a coastal area of Indonesia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 122(1–2), 217–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.06.046 (2017) (Epub 2017 Jun 20 PMID: 28645761).
Reisser, J. et al. Marine plastic pollution in waters around Australia: Characteristics, concentrations, and pathways. PLoS One 8(11), e80466 (2013).
Järlskog, I. et al. Occurrence of tire and bitumen wear microplastics on urban streets and in sweepsand and washwater. Sci. Total Environ. 729, 138950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138950 (2020) (Epub 2020 Apr 26. PMID: 32371211).
Key, P. B., Fulton, M. H., Scott, G. I., Layman, S. L. & Wirth, E. F. Lethal and sublethal effects of malathion on three life stages of the grass shrimp, Palaemonetes pugio. Aquat. Toxicol. 40(4), 311–322 (1998).
DeLorenzo, M. E., Serrano, L., Chung, K. W., Hoguet, J. & Key, P. B. Effects of the insecticide permethrin on three life stages of the grass shrimp, Palaemonetes pugio. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 64(2), 122–127 (2006).
Key, P. B., Meyer, S. L. & Chung, K. W. Lethal and sub-lethal effects of the fungicide chlorothalonil on three life stages of the grass shrimp, Palaemonetes pugio. J. Environ. Sci. Health B 38(5), 539–549 (2003).
Key, P. B., Chung, K. W., Hoguet, J., Shaddrix, B. & Fulton, M. H. Toxicity and physiological effects of brominated flame retardant PBDE-47 on two life stages of grass shrimp, Palaemonetes pugio. Sci. Total Environ. 399(1–3), 28–32 (2008).
Ziajahromi, S., Kumar, A., Neale, P. A. & Leusch, F. D. Environmentally relevant concentrations of polyethylene microplastics negatively impact the survival, growth and emergence of sediment-dwelling invertebrates. Environ. Pollut. 236, 425–431 (2018).
Redondo-Hasselerharm, P. E., Falahudin, D., Peeters, E. T. & Koelmans, A. A. Microplastic effect thresholds for freshwater benthic macroinvertebrates. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52(4), 2278–2286 (2018).
Lehtiniemi, M. et al. Exposure to leachates from post-consumer plastic and recycled rubber causes stress responses and mortality in a copepod Limnocalanus macrurus. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 173, 113103 (2021).
Martínez-Gómez, C., León, V. M., Calles, S., Gomáriz-Olcina, M. & Vethaak, A. D. The adverse effects of virgin microplastics on the fertilization and larval development of sea urchins. Mar. Environ. Res. 130, 69–76 (2017).
Khosrovyan, A., Gabrielyan, B. & Kahru, A. Ingestion and effects of virgin polyamide microplastics on Chironomus riparius adult larvae and adult zebrafish Danio rerio. Chemosphere 259, 127456 (2020).
Le Bihanic, F. et al. Organic contaminants sorbed to microplastics affect marine medaka fish early life stages development. Mar Pollut Bull. 154, 111059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111059 (2020) (Epub 2020 Mar 31 PMID: 32319895).
LeMoine, C. M. et al. Transcriptional effects of polyethylene microplastics ingestion in developing zebrafish (Danio rerio). Environ. Pollut. 243, 591–600 (2018).
Freeman, J. A. Regulation of tissue growth in crustacean larvae by feeding regime. Biol. Bull. 178(3), 217–221 (1990).
Ma, H. et al. Microplastics in aquatic environments: Toxicity to trigger ecological consequences. Environ. Pollut. 261, 114089 (2020).
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
This work is not a product of the United States Government or the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The author is not doing this work in any governmental capacity. The views expressed are his/her own and do not necessarily represent those of the United States or the US EPA.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Gray, A.D., Weinstein, J.E. & Riegerix, R.C. Assessment of acute toxicity and developmental transformation impacts of polyethylene microbead exposure on larval daggerblade grass shrimp (Palaemon pugio). Sci Rep 12, 6967 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-10999-y