ArticleScientific reports2025
Microplastics in the digestive tract of Gryllus pennsylvanicus crickets in a biosolid - treated agricultural field.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Polarization Holographic 4D Phenotyping Reveals Nanoplastic Induced Dysfunction in Zooplankton.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Microplastic ubiquity, its general toxicology, and its suitability for ingestion by biota are leading ecological and human health concerns. Microplastics are abundant in terrestrial environments including agricultural settings where municipal biosolids applied as fertilizers show high levels of microplastics. Microplastic ingestion by omnivorous insects in the environment is not well explored. To determine whether crickets eat microplastics in the wild, we examined the digestive tracts of 50 crickets collected from a research site in Ontario, Canada. Crickets were caught in three locations: a crop field amended with dewatered municipal biosolids, along the untreated edge of the field, and along a nearby tree line. Over half of the dissected crickets contained microplastics. A total of 87 microplastics (31-2548 μm) were found (60 microfragments; 27 microfibers). Using FTIR, we determined 66% of the microfragments were plastic polymers although match quality was low, likely due to exposure to multiple degradation processes (e.g. laundry, wastewater processing, ingestion by animals). Trap location did not influence the number of crickets ingesting microplastics. We present evidence that lab-reared crickets of the same species break down ingested microplastics into smaller fragments using manufactured polyethylene spheres, and discuss the possibility that generalist ground dwelling insects like crickets contribute to the active transport and biotransformation of microplastics, with potential cascading effects on microplastic movement through the food webs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.