ArticleScientific reports2025
A comparative analysis of microplastics in feces of terrestrial mammalian wildlife around Hong Kong.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Plastic ingestion by terrestrial mammals, especially wildlife near urbanized areas, remains underexplored, with limited studies exploring species-specific differences. This study addresses these gaps by examining microplastics (MPs) in feces of five wild species from Hong Kong's countryside: buffalo, cattle, wild boar, macaques, and porcupines. These species were selected for their high interaction with humans and consumption of anthropogenic food. Fecal samples were digested, visually inspected, and MPs characterized using spectroscopy. Microplastics were detected across all sites: macaques (0.2-6.9 MPs/gram dry weight [d.w.], 50-90% occurrence), boars (0.5-3.7 MPs/gram d.w., 60-100% occurrence), porcupines (2.1 MPs/gram d.w., 80% occurrence), buffalo (17.7 MPs/gram d.w., 100% occurrence), and cattle (4.1-65.5 MPs/gram d.w., 90-100% occurrence). Secondary microplastics, primarily polyethylene, polypropylene, and polyester (common in food packaging and textiles) were predominant. Feeding behaviour significantly influenced microplastic abundance. Non-selective grazers (buffalo and cattle) exhibited higher concentrations (median: 15.8 and 17.7 MPs/gram d.w., respectively) compared to selective feeders (macaques, porcupines, and boars; median: 1.8, 2.1, and 1.2 MPs/gram d.w.). Regarding MPs size, the larger mammals, cattle and buffalo, excreted significantly larger microplastics (522 and 391 µm) compared to macaques and porcupines (301 and 268 µm). We present the first evidence of plastic ingestion by common wildlife species from Hong Kong, emphasizing the vulnerability of animals to plastic pollution in peri-urban habitats. The findings underscore the need for research on the health impacts of plastic ingestion and the development of strategies to mitigate plastic pollution to natural ecosystems.
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.