Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32709913›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

An end to the controversy over the microscopic detection and effects of pristine microplastics in fish organs.

Carolina De Sales-Ribeiro, Yeray Brito-Casillas, Antonio Fernandez, María José Caballero

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 146 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Unusual Mass Mortality of Atlantic Puffins (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  8. Protective Effect ofToxics · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Dietary Microplastic Administration during Zebrafish (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. A comparison of microplastic contamination in freshwater fish from natural and farmed sources.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Carolina De Sales-RibeiroDivision of Veterinary Histology and Pathology, Institute for Animal Health and Food Safety (IUSA), Veterinary School, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 35413, Arucas, Spain.
Yeray Brito-CasillasResearch Institute in Biomedical and Health Sciences (IUIBS), University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 35016, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.
Antonio FernandezDivision of Veterinary Histology and Pathology, Institute for Animal Health and Food Safety (IUSA), Veterinary School, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 35413, Arucas, Spain.
María José CaballeroDivision of Veterinary Histology and Pathology, Institute for Animal Health and Food Safety (IUSA), Veterinary School, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 35413, Arucas, Spain. mariajose.caballero@ulpgc.es.
Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aquatic environment and the associated fish assemblages are being exposed to an increasing amount of microplastics. Despite the high number of publications on the presence of microplastics in fish, little is known about their uptake, translocation and accumulation within fish organs. Experimental studies on the detection and effects of pristine microplastics in fish have shown controversial and ambiguous results, respectively. Here, we conducted two experiments to detect and assess the impacts of dietary exposure of Danio rerio to different types of pristine microplastics. Our results show that D. rerio recognizes plastic particles as inedible materials but ingests them when mixed with food or fish oil. Accidental ingestion occurs in fish exposed to relatively small (1-5 µm) microplastic particles without associated food or fish oil. Additionally, D. rerio effectively eliminated pristine microplastics 24 h after ingestion; however, retention time was associated with increasing particle size and the intake of additional meals. Clinical signs, such as anorexia and lethargy, are present in fish fed relatively large microplastics (120-220 µm). The ingestion of microplastics does not induce any histopathological changes. To the best of our knowledge, we are able, for the first time, to fully demonstrate the uptake and translocation of plastic microbeads using confocal microscopy. Our results question the findings of previous studies on the detection and effects of pristine microplastics in fish and state that inaccurate interpretations of the histological findings regarding microplastics in fish organs is a prevalent flaw in the current scientific literature.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnorexiaDietary ExposureEnvironmental MonitoringFeeding BehaviorFemaleIntestinal EliminationLethargyMaleMicroplasticsMicroscopy, ConfocalMicrospheresModels, AnimalParticle SizeTissue DistributionToxicity Tests, SubchronicMicroplasticsWater Pollutants, Chemical

Identifiers

PMID32709913
PMCPMC7382502
OpenAlexW3045346482

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.