2020 - Miller - Bioaccumulation and Biomagnification of Microplastics in Marine Organisms - A Review and Meta-Analysis of Current Data

PLOS ONE
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Bioaccumulation and biomagnification of

microplastics in marine organisms: A review
and meta-analysis of current data
Michaela E. Miller ID1,2,3*, Mark Hamann3, Frederieke J. Kroon ID1,2
1 Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), Townsville, Queensland, Australia, 2 Division of Research
and Innovation, AIMS@JCU, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia, 3 College of
Science and Engineering, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
* m.miller@aims.gov.au, michaela.miller@my.jcu.edu.au
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111 Abstract
a1111111111
a1111111111 Microplastic (MP) contamination has been well documented across a range of habitats and
for a large number of organisms in the marine environment. Consequently, bioaccumulation,
and in particular biomagnification of MPs and associated chemical additives, are often
inferred to occur in marine food webs. Presented here are the results of a systematic litera-
OPEN ACCESS ture review to examine whether current, published findings support the premise that MPs
Citation: Miller ME, Hamann M, Kroon FJ (2020) and associated chemical additives bioaccumulate and biomagnify across a general marine
Bioaccumulation and biomagnification of food web. First, field and laboratory-derived contamination data on marine species were
microplastics in marine organisms: A review and
standardised by sample size from a total of 116 publications. Second, following assignment
meta-analysis of current data. PLoS ONE 15(10):
e0240792. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. of each species to one of five main trophic levels, the average uptake of MPs and of associ-
pone.0240792 ated chemical additives was estimated across all species within each level. These uptake
Editor: Amitava Mukherjee, VIT University, INDIA data within and across the five trophic levels were then critically examined for any evidence
of bioaccumulation and biomagnification. Findings corroborate previous studies that MP
Received: June 5, 2020
bioaccumulation occurs within each trophic level, while current evidence around bioaccumu-
Accepted: October 3, 2020
lation of associated chemical additives is much more ambiguous. In contrast, MP biomagni-
Published: October 16, 2020 fication across a general marine food web is not supported by current field observations,
Copyright: © 2020 Miller et al. This is an open while results from the few laboratory studies supporting trophic transfer are hampered by
access article distributed under the terms of the using unrealistic exposure conditions. Further, a lack of both field and laboratory data
Creative Commons Attribution License, which
precludes an examination of potential trophic transfer and biomagnification of chemical
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original additives associated with MPs. Combined, these findings indicate that, although bioaccumu-
author and source are credited. lation of MPs occurs within trophic levels, no clear sign of MP biomagnification in situ was
Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are observed at the higher trophic levels. Recommendations for future studies to focus on inves-
within the manuscript and its Supporting tigating ingestion, retention and depuration rates for MPs and chemical additives under
Information files. environmentally realistic conditions, and on examining the potential of multi-level trophic
Funding: Funding to support this project was transfer for MPs and chemical additives have been made.
provided by AIMS@JCU through a Pilot Research
Award to MM. The funders had no role in study
design, data collection and analysis, decision to
publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Introduction
Competing interests: The authors have declared Contamination of the marine environment with microplastics (MPs; plastics < 5 mm) has
that no competing interests exist. been identified as an issue of global concern [1], and documented extensively in seawater,
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240792 October 16, 2020 1 / 25

PLOS ONE Biomagnification of microplastics in marine environments
Abbreviations: ABS, Acrylonitrile butadiene marine sediments, and marine biota [2]. Microplastics are of particular concern as a pollutant
styrene; ASA, Acrylonitrile styrene acrylate; BBP, in environmental systems because their small size and variable buoyancy makes them readily
Benzyl butyl phthalate; CP, Cellophane; DBP,
available for uptake by a wide range of organisms across different trophic levels and feeding
Dibutyl phthalate; DEP, Diethyl phthalate; DEHA,
Diethylhexyl adipate; DEHP, Bis(2-ethylhexyl) strategies [3]. Indeed, the uptake of MPs has been confirmed in wild populations of numerous
phthalate; DMP, Dimethyl phthalate; DnOP, Di-n- marine organisms across all trophic levels collected from their natural habitat [2]. The preva-
octylphthalate; EVA, Ethylene-vinyl acetate; FTIR, lence of such reports has resulted in bioaccumulation, and in particular biomagnification of
Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy; HBCD, MPs and associated chemical additives, often being inferred in the literature on marine MP
Hexabromocyclododecane; HDPE, High Density
contamination [4–6]. However, limited published evidence appears to exist for trophic transfer
Polyethylene; LDPE, Low Density Polyethylene;
MDPE, Medium Density Polyethylene; PA,
and biomagnification of MPs and associated additives within food webs in marine
Polyamide; PAA, Polyacrylic Acid; PAH, Polycyclic environments.
aromatic hydrocarbons; PAN, Polyacrylonitrile; The ecological risks of MP contamination can be defined as the likelihood of adverse eco-
PBDE, Polybrominated diphenyl ether; PC, logical effects occurring as a result of exposure to MPs [7, 8]. Marine organisms can be exposed
Polycarbonate; PCB, Polychlorinated biphenyl; PE, through direct ingestion of MPs, through indirect ingestion of MPs via prey items, or by
Polyethylene; PES, Polyester; PET, Polyethylene
means of respiration. Irrespective of the pathway, MP intake can result in adverse physical and
Terephthalate; PLA, Polylactic Acid; PMMA, Poly
(methyl methacrylate); PP, Polypropylene; PS, chemical impacts on marine organisms [9–11]. Examples of potential impacts include physical
Polystyrene; PTFE, Polytetrafluoroethylene; PUR, retention of MPs in digestive tracts [12] and chemical leaching of plastic additives into tissues
Polyurethane; PVA, Poly(vinyl alcohol); PVC, [13]. These impacts are often investigated during controlled laboratory exposures using a vari-
Polyvinyl Chloride; VI, Viscose. ety of endpoints such as growth rate [14, 15], fecundity [16], and mortality [17]. In wild-caught
organisms, however, causality between MP exposure pathways and observed effects is often
difficult to ascertain due to the multitude of stressors present in the marine environment [18].
Hence, understanding endpoints such as bioaccumulation and biomagnification can assist in
improving our understanding of the potential ecological effects associated with different MP
exposure pathways in the marine environment [8].
Bioaccumulation and biomagnification are two critical concepts used in ecological risk
assessments to determine the extent of pollutant transport within food webs [19]. The classical
concept of bioaccumulation and biomagnification usually refers to dissolved chemical contami-
nation [20], although the terminology has been readily adopted by the MP literature [21–23]. In
this study, bioaccumulation (or body burden) is defined as the net uptake of a contaminant (i.e.
MPs or additives) from the environment by all possible routes (e.g. contact, ingestion, respira-
tion) from any source (e.g. water, sediment, prey) [24, 25]. In other words, bioaccumulation is
occurring when uptake of a contaminant is greater than the ability of an organism to egest a
contaminant [26]. Bioaccumulation and subsequent trophic transfer of a contaminant may
result in the biomagnification of these contaminants at higher trophic levels [27]. Biomagnifica-
tion across a food web can thus be defined as the increase in concentration of a contaminant
(i.e. MPs or additives) in one organism compared to the concentration in its prey [24, 25]. An
important assumption for this definition is that all contamination in higher trophic levels is a
direct result of consumption of prey in lower trophic levels, i.e. trophic transfer is occurring.
This study examines whether current, published findings support the premise that MPs,
and their chemical additives, bioaccumulate and biomagnify across a general marine food
web. First, following a systematic review of the literature, uptake data on MPs and their addi-
tives derived from field observations and laboratory experiments were standardised by sample
size for individual marine species. For each species, feeding habit was also noted to provide an
alternative perspective based on previous findings [28, 29]. Second, following assignment of
each species to one of five main trophic levels, the average uptake of MPs and of associated
chemical additives was estimated across all species within each level. These uptake data within
and across the five trophic levels were then critically examined for any evidence of bioaccumu-
lation and biomagnification. If trophic transfer and biomagnification of MPs and associated
additives occurs within marine food webs, an increase in average bioaccumulation from lower
to higher trophic levels is expected.

Materials and methods

Systematic review procedures
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analyses of the global literature on MP contamina-
tion data for individual marine species, an established protocol was followed (PRISMA [30],
Fig 1). Specifically, a thorough literature search was conducted to evaluate whether bioaccu-
mulation and biomagnification of MPs and associated additives occurs, either in situ or under
experimental laboratory settings. The search was performed in Google Scholar and Web of
ScienceTM, finalised in July 2019, and covered the years 1969 to 2019. The search included the
following terms: microplastics, plastics, ingestion, trophic transfer, toxicity, fish, plastic addi-
tives, effects, and impacts. Additional records were also identified through reference lists in
various review studies. Following removal of duplicate records, the remaining publications
were screened based on study organisms and contaminants of concern (i.e. MPs and/or associ-
ated additives). Records that did not examine MPs and/or associated additives in aquatic spe-
cies from coastal, pelagic, reef and deep-sea environments were subsequently removed. As the
Fig 1. PRISMA flowchart providing the steps of data collection for the systematic review of evidence for
bioaccumulation and biomagnification in a general marine food web. The review focussed on microplastics and
associated chemical additives detected in marine species from coastal, pelagic, reef and deep-sea environments.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240792.g001

focus of this study was on MPs and associated chemical additives rather than environmental
contaminants adsorbed to MPs, plastic additives considered here were limited to those out-
lined in Hahladakis et al. [31] and Hermabessiere et al. [3], and only if directly related to MP
contamination. Full text articles were obtained for the remaining records where possible and
assessed for eligibility for inclusion in the qualitative and quantitative assessment of evidence
for bioaccumulation and biomagnification in a general marine food web. Criteria for exclusion
included lack of species-specific information, scientific names not given, inability to assign a
trophic level to species, non-aquatic species (i.e. birds), and contaminants were not MPs or
associated additives. Lack of polymer assignment of putative MPs with a validated laboratory
method, i.e. Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR), Raman Spectroscopy, or Gas
chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS) [32], was not used as a criterion as this would
have excluded too many reports from the review. Finally, while there has been debate over the
larger size limit of MPs being either < 1 mm [33] or < 5 mm [34], the more commonly used
threshold of < 5 mm has been utilised when including literature [1].
Standardisation of contamination data

To enable comparison of contamination data in a consistent format, the findings of eligible
reports on MP contamination were collated and standardised into number of MPs per individ-
ual organism (MPs individual-1; i.e. body burden) for each individual species (S1 Fig in S1
File). For articles originally reporting in this unit the contamination data was used as is, while
for articles reporting in MP g-1, the contamination data was converted to MPs individual-1
using the reported individual weights. The unit of MPs individual-1 is representative of MPs
per number of total organisms in the sample size for a particular species, rather than taken
from only the number of organisms that exhibited MP contamination. Moreover, average (±
standard deviation, S.D.) MPs individual-1 values presented throughout this study include data
collated from reports of zero contamination, with concentrations representative of MPs per
number of total organisms in the sample size for a particular species, rather than taken from
only the number of organisms that exhibited MP contamination. Similarly, concentrations of
plastic additives per individual (ng g-1; i.e. body burden) were standardised for each individual
species and were based on reported and quantified concentrations of additives in the tissues of
the target organisms. All supplementary material available was examined if such data on MPs
or additives were not reported in the original article. Any contamination data that could not
be standardised given the information presented was removed from analysis. This included
data presented as a percentage, without quantifying the number of particles extracted from
organisms, as well as data lacking a sample size. Finally, to enable consistency in reviewing, ter-
minology for MP shapes reported in the original article was condensed into four categories,
namely fibres (alternatively ‘filaments,’ ‘rope’ and ‘fishing line’), fragments (alternatively ‘parti-
cle,’ ‘irregular’ and ‘crystal’), films, and spheres (alternatively ‘beads’ and ‘pellets’) [35].
Assignment to trophic level

To enable comparison of contamination data within and across trophic levels, each individual
species was assigned to a specific trophic level using FishBase [36] for all fish species and SeaLi-
feBase [37] for all other marine species. These databases use recent information on diet com-
position and food items, combined with modelling, to obtain a numerical trophic level value
for individual species. In short, the trophic level of a given species is estimated using the equa-
tion:
½Trophic Level ¼ 1 þ mean trophic level of food items�

including a weighted mean based on the contribution of the various food items to the overall
diet of the species [36, 37]. For the purpose of this study, each species was assigned to one of
five main trophic levels, namely: (1) primary producers (i.e. autotrophs, level 1); (2) primary
consumers (i.e. herbivores, level 2); (3) secondary consumers (levels 2.1 to 2.9), (4) tertiary
consumers (levels 3 to 3.9); and (5) quaternary consumers (levels 4 to 4.9).
Prior to assignment, the taxonomic nomenclature for individual species was verified using
the World Register of Marine Species [38]. Next, individual species were assigned to one of the
following five trophic categories as mentioned above. First, primary producers (or autotrophs)
are considered to be trophic level 1. While autotrophs produce their own food, primary pro-
ducers still have the potential to interact with MPs through attachment to outer appendages
and may act as an entry point into the food web [39]. Second, primary consumers (or herbi-
vores) include a variety of zooplankton, bivalves and reef fishes. Omnivores and carnivores
occur throughout levels 2.1 to 4.5 and include a wide variety of organisms (e.g. bivalves, fishes,
mammals) with a multitude of feeding strategies. Tertiary and quaternary consumers are often
top predators and are an important component to marine food webs. These species are of par-
ticular interest due to the potential biomagnification of contaminants resulting from the con-
sumption of lower tropic levels, as well as their eventual use for human consumption [40].
Following trophic assignment, the feeding habit of each individual species was also noted
using the information provided by FishBase [36] and SeaLifeBase [37]. Organisms can exhibit
a wide variety of feeding strategies which may affect MP uptake; namely filter feeding, grazing
or browsing, selectively feeding on plankton, predator, scavenger and variable. Filter feeding
organisms utilise the movement of external or internal appendages to produce a current, draw-
ing particles in [41]. Grazers and browsers are herbivorous organisms that feed on algae grow-
ing along the substratum, usually by means of scraping [42]. Selectively feeding planktivores
and predators use capture-based feeding where prey is obtained in a striking manner (e.g. mer-
oplankton, reef fishes) [43]. Scavengers are organisms that sift through the benthos opportu-
nistically consuming plant and/or animal matter [44]. Finally, variable indicates that species
showcase multiple feeding strategies.
Assessment of bioaccumulation and biomagnification

To assess whether bioaccumulation and biomagnification was evident in a general marine
food web, standardised data on MP and chemical additive contamination derived from field
observations or laboratory experiments were compared within and across trophic levels. For
bioaccumulation, the presence and abundance of MPs and chemical additives for individual
trophic levels, and for individual species within each trophic level was examined. To assess
bioaccumulation, specific attention was given to field-based reports that provided both esti-
mates of contaminant exposure and quantified contamination within a species, and to labora-
tory-based reports that provided estimates of contaminant exposure, as well as uptake and
retention of contaminants within a species. For biomagnification, data was examined to deter-
mine whether contamination of MPs and chemical additives increased with increasing trophic
levels. To assess biomagnification, specific attention was given to field-based studies that quan-
tified levels of contamination across individual trophic levels, and to laboratory-based reports
that contained a trophic transfer component.
Results
Selection of suitable contamination data
The systematic review of the literature identified a total of 1,357 publications (Fig 1, S1
Table in S1 File). Following screening of the 1,357 records on study organisms and

contaminants of concern (i.e. MPs and/or associated additives), 295 records remained for fur-
ther assessment of eligibility. Based on eligibility criteria, primarily around inability to stan-
dardise contamination data given the information presented in the study (S2a Table in S1
File), a total of 116 publications were included in the qualitative and quantitative assessment
(S2b Table in S1 File). These studies include reports on MP contamination in both in situ
(n = 87) and laboratory-based marine organisms (n = 20), as well as reports on chemical addi-
tive uptake as a result of MP uptake in both in situ (n = 2 out of 87) and laboratory-based
marine organisms (n = 7). Also included in this study are laboratory-based experiments dem-
onstrating the trophic transfer of MPs (n = 2).
Across the 87 studies investigating MP contamination in field collected organisms, a total
of 23,049 individuals comprising 411 species across 7 phyla were examined. From these, 537
individual organisms from 94 species exhibited no MP contamination, with the remaining
22,512 individual organisms from 329 species showing contamination with MPs (S3a Table in
S1 File). Contamination data for most species could be divided by sample size to obtain esti-
mates of MPs individual-1; data for 11 species (all bivalve molluscs) were transformed from
MPs g-1 to MPs individual-1 to enable inclusion in this study (S3b Table in S1 File). From 2 out
of the 87 studies that examined in situ organisms, chemical additive uptake linked with MP
ingestion was quantified for a total of 8 chemicals in 115 individual organisms from 3 species
(S4 Table in S1 File).
Laboratory studies investigating MP uptake (n = 20) included a minimum of 1,610 individ-
uals comprising 21 marine species across 6 phyla (S5 Table in S1 File). Transfer of MPs across
two trophic levels was specifically investigated in three laboratory studies (S6 Table in S1 File).
In addition, seven laboratory studies investigated the uptake of chemical additives as a result of
MP uptake on marine biota (S7 Table in S1 File). Across these 7 studies, 581 individual organ-
isms comprising 6 species across 2 phyla were analysed for contamination of 5 chemical
additives.
Contamination in primary producers

MP contamination of primary producers (trophic level 1) in the marine environment was only
investigated in one study (S3a Table in S1 File) [45]. MPs were found within the epiphytic
layer of the autotrophic seagrass Thalassia testudinum at a quantity of 4.56 MPs individual-1
(n = 16) (Figs 2A and 3). Contamination levels of the surrounding sampling area were not
reported. While the shapes of putative MPs, including shapes including fibres, fragments and
spheres, were indicative of MPs (Fig 4), their polymer types were not confirmed. Studies on
primary producers that examined contamination with chemical additives in situ, or contami-
nation with MPs or chemical additives under controlled laboratory exposures were not found.
Contamination in primary consumers

A total of 41 publications on marine primary consumers (trophic level 2) contaminated with
MPs and/or associated chemical additives were identified. Contamination of herbivores with
MPs has been reported in both the field (n = 26 studies; S3a Table in S1 File) and in laboratory
experiments (n = 12; S5 Table in S1 File). In contrast, only a few studies report on chemical
additive contamination resulting from MP uptake by herbivores from in situ observations
(n = 1; S4 Table in S1 File) or laboratory experiments (n = 4; S7 Table in S1 File).
a. Field observations. In situ herbivores have been found to exhibit contamination in 43
species across 4 phyla, with a total of 37 species. On average, herbivores were found to be con-
taminated with 4.55 ± 8.59 S.D. MPs individual-1 (n = 4,993) (Fig 2A). MP uptake was greatest
in molluscs (6.97 ± 11.22 S.D. MPs individual-1; n = 3,135), followed by annelids (1.65 ± 1.48

Fig 2. Body burden of bioaccumulated microplastics individual-1 estimated for different trophic levels, based on reports for marine species collected in situ (a) 1 to 2.9,
(b) 3 to 3.9, and (c) 4 to 4.5, and exposed in laboratory experiments (d) 2 to 3.7. Data have been organised to show the minimum, first quartile, median, mean (X), third
quartile, maximum and outliers (˚). Trophic levels have been grouped into to a single decimal place, e.g. level 4.2 includes 4.21 to 4.29. Note different scales on y-axes in
panels a-c) compared to panel d).
S.D. MPs individual-1; n = 18), fishes (0.83 ± 1.68 S.D. MPs individual-1; n = 754), and arthro-
pods (0.44 ± 0.48 S.D. MPs individual-1; n = 1,086). Herbivorous filter feeders demonstrated
the highest level of contamination (6.83 ± 11.04 S.D. MPs individual-1; n = 21 sp.), followed by
browsers/grazers (0.96 ± 1.71 S.D. MPs individual-1; n = 17 sp.), scavengers (0.96 MPs individ-
ual-1; n = 1 sp.), and selective planktivores (0.12 ± 0.15 S.D. MPs individual-1; n = 4 sp.) (Fig
3A). Five studies reported environmental MP contamination levels alongside MP uptake in
primary consumers [46–50], however, different reporting units for environmental and organ-
ismal contamination makes direct comparisons difficult (Table 1). Notwithstanding, the MP
body burdens reported for primary consumer species in these studies do not appear to support
an accumulation of MPs within organisms compared to MP concentrations in the surround-
ing environments.
The sizes of MPs detected ranges from 10 μm to 4.7 mm, while shapes included fibres, frag-
ments, films and spheres (Fig 4). While not all studies confirmed polymer type of putative
MPs detected in primary consumers, those that did found a wide range including polyethylene
(PE), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), polyvinyl chlo-
ride (PVC), polyester (PES), viscose (VI; rayon), polyamide (PA; nylon), and others (Fig 5).
Only two herbivorous species, namely the bivalves Mytilus edulis and Cerastoderma edule,
have been examined for contamination with chemical additives associated with MPs in their
natural habitat (S4 Table in S1 File). Relatively high concentrations of phthalates were reported

Fig 3. Body burden of bioaccumulated microplastics individual-1 estimated for different feeding strategies, based on reports for marine species collected in situ (a), and
exposed in laboratory experiments (b). Data have been organised into feeding strategies and presented to show the minimum, first quartile, median, mean (X), third
quartile, maximum and outliers (˚). Note different scales on y-axes. Mean (X) values for (b) laboratory conditions are exclusive of outlier values.
for M. edulis and C. edule, 26.36 and 52.36 ng g-1, with concentrations of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and polychlorinated biphe-
nyls (PCBs) substantially lower for both organisms [54]. Contamination levels in the sur-
rounding environment were not measured.
b. Laboratory exposures. Evidence of MP uptake by herbivores under controlled labora-
tory exposures has been examined in 11 species and confirmed for 8 species (S5 Table in S1
File). While exposure conditions, such as durations, nominal MP concentrations, polymer
types, sizes, and shapes varied, MP uptake ranged from 0 to 200,000 MPs individual-1 with an
average of 25,596.57 ± 13,511.93 S.D. MPs individual-1 (n = 377) (Fig 2D). This extraordinary
number is mainly a result of C. helgolandicus’ ingestion rates of 3,278 and 104,100 MPs indi-
vidual-1 [16, 55] and M. edulis’ ingestion of 105,000 to 200,000 MPs individual-1 [56]. With
those extreme values removed, average MP uptake drops to 25.62 ± 14.64 S.D. MPs individual-
1
(n = 241). Measured MP exposure concentrations were not reported in any of these studies.
Examination of MP egestion over a depuration period showed that MPs were retained in A.
compressa for at least 36 hours [57], and in T. gratilla for fewer than 2 days [58].
A total of 4 species have been examined for contamination with chemical additive associ-
ated with MPs uptake under controlled laboratory exposures, namely the mussels Mytilus edu-
lis [59] and Mytilus spp. [60], the clam Scrobicularia plana [61] and the amphipod Allorchestes
compressa [57] (S7 Table in S1 File). Nominal exposure concentrations for PAHs (including
fluoranthene and benzo[a]pyrene) and a range of PBDEs ranged from 5 ng to 100 μg l-1, with
chemicals dosed alone, alongside MPs, or absorbed to MP particles. Uptake of chemical addi-
tives seemed to be highest when dosed alone (2,000 to 117,000 ng g-1) and lowest when
absorbed to MPs (0 to 2,710 ng g-1), regardless of the chemical additive or organism used.

Fig 4. Frequency of microplastic (MP) shapes reported in studies on marine species collected in situ and exposed in laboratory experiments. Data has been
organised by trophic level, which are grouped into to a single decimal place, i.e. level 4.2 includes 4.21 to 4.29. Microplastic shapes include those found in organisms
collected from field samples (n = 87 studies; dark shaded on bottom) or used in laboratory experiments investigating MP uptake, including those focused on trophic
transfer (n = 22 studies; light shaded on top). Details regarding the number and percentage of studies for each level have been provided in S8 Table in S1 File.
None of the studies reported on measured exposure concentrations or on retention rates for
these chemicals or quantified the MP uptake by the organisms examined.
Contamination in secondary consumers

Overall, a total of 33 publications on marine secondary consumers (trophic level 2.1–2.9) con-
taminated with MPs and/or associated chemical additives were identified. Contamination of
secondary consumers with MPs has been reported in both the field (n = 26 studies; S3a
Table in S1 File) and in laboratory experiments (n = 7; S5 Table in S1 File). In contrast, only 3
studies report on chemical additive contamination resulting from MP uptake by secondary
consumers from both in situ observations (n = 1; S4 Table in S1 File) or laboratory experi-
ments (n = 2; S7 Table in S1 File).
a. Field observations. MP uptake by secondary consumers in situ has been investigated in
34 species, with 31 species exhibiting contamination, including various species of bivalves,

Table 1. Environmental contamination and bioaccumulation of microplastics (MP) for marine organisms (MPs individual-1) collected in situ.
Environment Environmental Contamination Unit (MPs per) Trophic Level Associated Species MP Location Reference
Individual-1
Surface Water 659.9 ± 520.9 m-3 4.4 Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 1.15 Canada [51]
Sediment 60.2 ± 63.4 kg-1 d.w.
Surface Water 16,339–520,213 km-2 2 Siganus luridus 3.13 Turkey [50]
2.8 Liza aurata 3.26
3.1 Mullus barbatus 1.39
Sardina pilchardus 2.14
3.4 Lithognathus mormyrus 0.63
Scomber japonicus 6.71
Serranus cabrilla 1.50
3.5 Mullus surmuletus 1.18
Pagellus erythrinus 0.63
Upeneus pori 0.69
3.6 Diplodus annularis 1.96
Pelates quadrilineatus 1.48
Upeneus moluccensis 0.78
3.7 Sparus aurata 0.87
3.8 Nemipterus randalli 1.31
Pagellus acarne 1.63
Pomadasys incisus 0.79
Sciaena umbra 3.00
Trachurus mediterraneus 1.77
3.9 Pagrus pagrus 1.44
4 Chelidonichthys lucerna 0.75
4.1 Caranx crysos 5.00
Dentex gibbosus 0.29
4.3 Argyrosomus regius 1.84
4.5 Saurida undosquamis 1.22
Surface Water 27 L-1 2 Mytilus edulis 1.23 North Sea [46]
Sediment 48 kg-1 d.w.
Surface Water 110 m–3 2 Copepoda spp. 0.33 Indian Ocean [47]
Sediment 4.83 ± 2.44 ml-1 2 Cerastoderma edule 4.30 Atlantic Ocean [48]
Hediste diversicolor 2.70
Pelecyora isocardia 1.50
Scolelepis squamata 0.60
Scrobicularia plana 3.30
Senilia senilis 1.00
3 Diopatra neapolitana 1.00
Glycera alba 3.00
Sub-surface Water (6 m) 2.4 ± 0.8 m-3 3.1 Boreogadus saida 0.22 Artic [52]
3.3 Triglops nybelini 0.39
Sub-surface Water 1.39 m-3 3.3 Callionymus lyra 0.02 UK [53]
Microchirus variegatus 0.19
3.6 Anguilla anguilla 1.00
3.7 Trisopterus minutus 0.02
Surface Sediment 560–4,205 kg-1 d.w. 2 Acila mirabilis 5.50 China [49]
(Continued )

Table 1. (Continued)
Environment Environmental Contamination Unit (MPs per) Trophic Level Associated Species MP Location Reference
Individual-1
3.19 Crangon affinis 29.40
Environmental contamination data on MPs pertain to results reported for locations where marine species were collected; please note different units. Microplastic
concentrations reported for marine species were standardised into number of MPs per individual organism (MPs individual-1; i.e. body burden) (see ‘Standardisation of
contamination data’).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240792.t001
Fig 5. Frequency of microplastic (MP) polymer types confirmed in studies on marine species collected in situ and exposed in laboratory experiments. Data has
been organised by trophic level, which are grouped into to a single decimal place, i.e. level 4.2 includes 4.21 to 4.29. Microplastic polymers include those found in
organisms collected from field samples (n = 87 studies; dark shaded on bottom) or used in laboratory experiments investigating MP uptake, including those focused on
trophic transfer (n = 22 studies; light shaded on top). Note that not all studies confirmed or reported MP polymer types. Details regarding the number and percentage of
studies for each trophic level have been provided in S8 Table in S1 File. ‘Other’ includes less frequently found polymers such as: PAN, PMMA, CP, PC, ABS, EVA, PVA,
PUR, PTFE, ASA, acrylic, alkyd and epoxy. Some varieties of polymers have been grouped together (i.e. PE includes HDPE, MDPE and LDPE; PET includes PET and
PES).

echinoderms, arthropods, fishes and sea turtles. Overall, MP uptake by secondary consumers
averaged 2.99 ± 6.40 S.D. MPs individual-1 (n = 2,755; Fig 2A). The highest levels of MP uptake
are reported for molluscs (7.81 ± 20.67 S.D MPs individual-1; n = 434), arthropods
(7.80 ± 10.05 S.D MPs individual-1; n = 900), and echinoderms (6.58 ± 5.06 S.D. MPs individ-
ual-1; n = 202) (S3a Table in S1 File). Lower levels were reported for sea turtles (Chelonia
mydas; 2.3 ± 1.7 S.D. MPs individual-1; n = 53), ascidians (1.78 ± 1.12 S.D. MPs individual-1;
n = 15), and fishes (1.39 ± 1.28 S.D. MPs individual-1; n = 1,151). When organised by feeding
strategies, species with scavenging behaviours demonstrated the highest levels of MP contami-
nation (6.58 ± 5.06 S.D. MPs individual-1; n = 2), followed by predators (5.44 ± 9.40 S.D. MPs
individual-1) and filter feeders (5.27 ± 13.41 S.D. MPs individual-1); much lower levels were
reported for species with variable feeding strategies, selective planktivores, and browsers/graz-
ers (Fig 3A). Only one study reported environmental MP contamination levels alongside
organism contamination (Table 1), with MP contamination in surrounding waters appearing
to be much higher than levels found in the mullet Liza aurata [50]. The sizes of MPs detected
ranged from 8 μm to 5 mm, while shapes included fibres, fragments, films, and spheres (Fig 4).
Polymer types of MPs detected in secondary consumers were confirmed to include PE, PES,
PA, PP, PET, PVC, VI, PS, and others (Fig 5).
Only one species, namely the ascidian Microcosmus exasperates, has been examined for con-
tamination with chemical additives associated with MPs in their natural habitat. The highest con-
centrations were reported for bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) (range: 4,851–4,988 ng g-1;
n = 15), followed by dibutyl phthalate (DBP) (range: 1,643–2,224 ng g-1; n = 15) [62] (S4 Table in
S1 File). Contamination levels in the surrounding environment were not measured.
b. Laboratory exposures. Evidence of MP uptake by secondary consumers under con-
trolled laboratory exposures has been documented in a total of 6 species, including bivalves,
crustaceans, and fish; all species investigated exhibiting MP uptake (S5 Table in S1 File). While
exposure conditions varied, average uptake by secondary consumers was 127.99 ± 853.44 S.D.
MPs individual-1 (n = 566) (Fig 2D). When removing extreme uptake values for Acanthochro-
mis polyacanthus (up to 2,102 MPs individual-1; [63]), average MP uptake is reduced to
11.87 ± 12.48 S.D. MPs individual-1 (n = 454). Measured MP exposure concentrations were not
reported in any of these studies. Examination of MP egestion over a 48 hr depuration period
showed that MPs were retained in Palaemonetes pugio for an average of 43 hrs, ranging from
approximately 28 to 76 hrs depending on the MP polymer type [64]. Egestion of MPs by the
mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis was 80% within the first 24 hrs, and 100% within 8 days [65].
Only one species, namely the bivalve Mytilus galloprovincialis, has been examined for contami-
nation with chemical additive associated with MPs uptake under controlled laboratory exposures
[66, 67] (S7 Table in S1 File). Nominal exposure concentrations for benzo[a]pyrene and pyrene
ranged from 0.15 μg l-1 to 15,000 ng g-1 and 200 to 260 ng g-1, respectively, with additives either
dosed alone or absorbed to MP particles. Uptake was greatest (470 ng g-1) in M. galloprovincialis
following a 7 day exposure to pyrene absorbed to PE and PS [66]. Following a 28-day exposure,
uptake of benzo[a]pyrene in the mussel’s digestive glands was higher when dosing alone (35 ng g-
1
) compared to when absorbed with low-density polyethylene (LDPE; 30 ng g-1) [67]. Beno[a]pyr-
ene was found to accumulate over time in both the digestive gland and the gills, irrespective of
exposure pathway [67]. Neither study reported on measured exposure concentrations or on reten-
tion rates for these chemicals or quantified the MP uptake by the bivalve examined.
Contamination in tertiary consumers

Marine tertiary consumers (trophic level 3–3.9) were investigated and found contaminated
with MPs and/or associated chemical additives in 50 publications. Contamination of these

consumers with MPs has been reported in both the field (n = 44 studies; S3a Table in S1 File)
and in laboratory experiments (n = 4; S5 Table in S1 File). In contrast, only two studies report
on chemical additive contamination resulting from MP uptake by tertiary consumers from
laboratory experiments (S7 Table in S1 File).
a. Field observations. In situ, evidence of MP uptake by tertiary consumers has been
investigated in 224 species across 5 phyla and confirmed in 175 of these species (S3a Table in
S1 File). On average, MP uptake by tertiary consumers was 1.47 ± 3.46 S.D. MPs individual-1
(n = 10,758) (Fig 2B). MP uptake was greatest in arthropods (8.15 ± 16.37 S.D. MPs individ-
ual-1; n = 300), largely due to high MP uptake by the shrimp Crangon affinis (29.40 MPs indi-
vidual-1) [49]. In contrast, MP uptake was lower in annelids (2.00 ± 1.41 S.D MPs individual-1;
n = 5), fishes (1.39 ± 2.97 S.D. MPs individual-1; n = 10,256), and sea turtles (1.5 ± 0.80 S.D.
MPs individual-1; n = 49). Tertiary consumers that exhibit predator (n = 7,897) and selective
planktivorous (n = 2,753) behaviour had the highest amount of contamination (1.53 ± 3.82
and 1.36 ± 1.64 S.D. MPs individual-1, respectively), with slightly lower contamination levels
in organisms with scavenger (n = 4), variable (n = 94) and filter feeding (n = 10) strategies; Fig
3A). Only five studies reported environmental MP contamination levels alongside organism
contamination (Table 1). Overall, MP contamination in surrounding environments appear to
be much higher than in the polychaete worms Glycera alba and Diopatra neapolitana [48], the
shrimp Crangon affinis [49], and in various fish species [50, 52]. Only one study found compa-
rable levels of MP contamination in both surrounding waters (range: 0.26 to 3.79 MPs m-3)
and in fish larvae (range: 0.02 to 4.8 MPs individual-1, n = 156) [53]. The sizes of MPs detected
range from 10 μm to 5 mm, with the majority being smaller than 2 mm; shapes included fibres,
fragments, films, and spheres (Fig 4). Polymer types of MPs detected in tertiary consumers
were confirmed to include PET, PE, PVC, PP, PA, PS, PES, VI, and others (Fig 5).
b. Laboratory exposures. MP uptake by tertiary consumers under controlled laboratory
exposures has been reported for 4 species, namely the polychaete worm Arenicola marina and
the teleost fishes Dicentrarchus labrax, Seriolella violacea, and Sparus aurata (S5 Table in S1
File). While exposure conditions varied, average uptake by tertiary consumers was 4.76 ± 2.82
S.D. MPs individual-1 (n = 617) (Fig 2D). The highest average uptake was recorded for the
seabream S. aurata (6.97 ± 10.13 S.D. MPs individual-1; n = 165), and the lowest for the palm
ruff S. violacea (0.75 ± 0.15 S.D. MPs individual-1; n = 132). Measured MP exposure concentra-
tions were not reported in any of these studies. Examination of MP egestion over a depuration
period showed that MPs were retained for fewer than 2 days in D. labrax [68], for an average
of 4.4 ± 0.9 days in S. violacea [69], and for more than 30 days in S. aurata [70].
Only one species, namely the lobster Nephrops norvegicus, has been examined for contami-
nation with chemical additive associated with MPs uptake under controlled laboratory expo-
sures. Exposure to a nominal exposure concentration of 1.34 μg for PCBs either dosed alone,
dosed alongside MPs, or absorbed to MP revealed that uptake of PCBs was highest when
exposed to the chemical additive alone [71]. The study did not report on measured exposure
concentrations or on retention rates for PCBs or quantified the MP uptake by the bivalve
examined.
Contamination in quaternary consumers

A total of 42 publications on marine quaternary consumers (trophic level 4–4.9) contaminated
with MPs and/or associated chemical additives were identified (S3a Table in S1 File). All these
studies reported on MP uptake in the field, with no reports on chemical uptake associated with
MP contamination in situ, or on MP or chemical additive contamination from controlled lab-
oratory exposures.

a. Field observations. MP uptake by quaternary consumers in situ has been investigated

in a total of 109 species, and confirmed for 85 species, including fish, sea turtles and marine
mammals (S3a Table in S1 File). On average, quaternary consumers have ingested 2.42 ± 5.30
S.D. MPs individual-1 (n = 4,527; Fig 2C). MP uptake was greatest in cetaceans (11.06 ± 8.72 S.
D. MPs individual-1; n = 225), followed by cartilaginous (1.25 ± 0.50 S.D. MPs individual-1;
n = 9), and ray-finned fishes (1.04 ± 1.93 S.D. MPs individual-1; n = 4,131) (S3a Table in S1
File). The lowest level of MP uptake was reported for elasmobranchs (0.27 ± 0.10 MPs individ-
ual-1; n = 160). The baleen humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, was the only filter-feed-
ing quaternary consumer to be investigated, exhibiting the highest MP uptake of 16 MPs
individual-1 (n = 1). In contrast, quaternary consumers that exhibit predator (n = 4,478) or
variable (n = 48) feeding strategies contained substantially less MP contamination (2.34 ± 5.20
and 0.85 ± 0.84 S.D. MPs individual-1, respectively; Fig 3A). Two studies reported environ-
mental MP contamination levels alongside organism contamination [50, 51] (Table 1). In both
cases, the MP contamination in the waters surrounding fishes appears to be higher than levels
detected in the organisms themselves. The sizes of MPs detected ranges from 10 μm to 5.0 mm
with the majority being between 500 μm and 3 mm. Shapes included fragments, films, spheres,
and fibres (Fig 4). Polymer types of MPs detected in quaternary consumers were confirmed to
include PET, PA, PP, PE, PVC, PS, PES, VI, and others (Fig 5).
Evidence for biomagnification across a general marine food web

Finally, to assess whether biomagnification was evident in a general marine food web, data was
examined to determine whether contamination of MPs and chemical additives increased with
increasing trophic level, using the standardised data for each trophic level from the 87 in situ
reports (S3a Table in S1 File). The 2 laboratory-based reports that contain a trophic transfer
component were also considered (S6 Table in S1 File).
a. Field observations. Across the 5 main tropic levels there was no apparent increase in
MP bioaccumulation with increasing trophic level, based on the estimated average MPs indi-
vidual-1 for each of these 5 levels derived from a total of 411 species (22,987 individuals) col-
lected in situ (S3a Table in S1 File; Fig 2). On average, MP contamination is highest for
herbivores (trophic level 2) at 4.55 ± 8.59 S.D. MP individual-1 (n = 4,993), and lowest for ter-
tiary consumers (trophic level 3 to 3.9) at 1.47 ± 3.46 S.D. MP individual-1 (n = 10,738). Within
the 5 tropic levels, the only slight increase in average MP body-burden was observed from tro-
phic level 4 to 4.5 (Fig 2C). The slightly higher average MP individual-1 in trophic level 4.5
could be largely attributed to relatively high levels of contamination in marine mammals (S3a
Table in S1 File). Notwithstanding, by far the highest average MP individual-1 was not in these
highest tropic levels, but in secondary consumer trophic level 2.4 (Fig 2A) caused by the high
bio-burden in the filter-feeding mussel Perna perna [72]. Indeed, rather than biomagnification
of MPs across trophic levels, the body burden of MPs in marine species appears to be more
influenced by feeding strategy (Fig 3A & 3B). Filter feeders have, on average higher levels of
MP contamination than any of the other feeding strategies, both in situ and under laboratory
conditions (6.62 ± 11.03 S.D. MP individual-1, n = 3,975; 32,523.89 ± 65,800.44 S.D. MP indi-
vidual-1, n = 319, respectively). However, with outliers removed, laboratory-exposed grazers
and browsers demonstrate higher levels of MP contamination on average (18.23 ± 15.24 S.D.
MP individual-1; n = 142; Fig 3B)
In situ biomagnification of chemical additives as a result of MP uptake in a general marine
food web cannot be supported nor refuted based on the current literature. Only three marine
species across two trophic levels have been examined for contamination with chemical addi-
tives associated with MPs in their natural habitat [54, 62] (S4 Table in S1 File). The chemical

additives examined differ across the two trophic levels, with phthalates (including benzyl butyl
phthalate [BBP], diethyl phthalate [DEP], dimethyl phthalate [DMP], diethylhexyl adipate
[DEHA], DEHP and DBP), PAHs, PBDEs, and PCBs quantified in two species categorised as
primary consumer [54], and only DEHP and DBP quantified in one species categorised as sec-
ondary consumer [62].
b. Laboratory exposures. Two studies have demonstrated the trophic transfer of MPs
between marine species, although neither of these studies quantified MP uptake (S6 Table in
S1 File). Two experiments included feeding pre-exposed Mytilus edulis mussels (n = 24 to 50)
to crabs Carcinus maenas (n = 24 to 42) [4, 73]. Microplastic retention times for C. maenas
ranged from 14 to 21 days but were not estimated for M. edulis as these studies assumed the
immediate consumption of mussels by crabs. None of the laboratory studies reviewed exam-
ined potential trophic transfer of chemical additives associated with MP uptake in marine
species.
Discussion
The aim of this review was to examine whether current, published findings support the prem-
ise that MPs, and their chemical additives, bioaccumulate and biomagnify across a general
marine food web, a notion often inferred in the literature on marine MP contamination [4–6].
Following a systematic review of the global literature, data was synthesised from 116 publica-
tions that quantified MP contamination for a total of 23,049 individuals from 411 marine spe-
cies in their natural habitat (n = 87 articles), and at least 1,610 individuals from 21 marine
species in laboratory settings (n = 20 articles). Our results corroborate previous studies [74,
75] that bioaccumulation of MPs occurs in numerous individual marine species across four
main trophic levels representing consumers, with MP contamination of primary producers
also reported [45]. Further, bioaccumulation of chemical additives associated with MP uptake
has also been documented, albeit in fewer species [54, 57, 71]. Interestingly, in all six species
examined, uptake of chemical additives was higher when exposed to the chemical alone com-
pared to exposure alongside or on MPs [57, 59, 60, 67, 71]. For most of the studies reporting
bioaccumulation of MPs or chemical additives, the concentrations in the surrounding envi-
ronment were not measured, hindering the elucidation of potential exposure pathways. In
contrast to bioaccumulation, biomagnification of MPs across the five main trophic levels is not
supported by field-based MP uptake data, although trophic transfer has been reported in two
laboratory studies [4, 73]. In situ biomagnification of chemical additives as a result of MP
uptake cannot be supported nor refuted, due to only a few studies examining different chemi-
cal additives [54, 62]. Finally, the body burden of MPs in marine species appears to be more
influenced by feeding strategy rather than biomagnification [28, 29], a finding that may well be
true for chemical additives as well.
Evidence for bioaccumulation

For this review, bioaccumulation was defined as the net uptake of MPs (or chemical additives)
from the environment by all possible routes (e.g. contact, ingestion, respiration) from any
source (e.g. water, sediment, prey) [24, 25]. Results confirm bioaccumulation of MPs in
numerous individual marine species constituting a general marine food web, in both field col-
lected and laboratory exposed organisms. On average, however, the body burden for most
marine species collected in situ could be considered low, with many reports of zero MP uptake
for individual species and individuals within species [76–78]. Indeed, an apparent low inci-
dence of marine debris (including MPs) uptake has been reported previously, with more than
80% of >20,000 individual coastal, marine and oceanic fish examined not containing any

marine debris [79]. The relatively low body burden is likely to reflect the inclusion of all organ-
isms in our quantification of MP individual-1 for each species, a more representative estimate
of MP bioaccumulation than only including the number of organisms that exhibit contamina-
tion [77, 80]. More broadly, a potential publication bias towards effects (i.e. detecting MP con-
tamination in marine species) versus no effects (i.e. not detecting MP contamination) may
have influenced our findings, although the existence and scale of such a bias in the MP litera-
ture is currently unknown [81, 82]. Further, the large variety of methodological procedures
used to quantify and report on MP contamination in marine organisms [2, 83, 84] is likely to
have affected our estimates of MP bioaccumulation. For example, polymer type is not always
confirmed using spectroscopy or polarised light microscopy [85, 86], a crucial step in the anal-
ysis workflow for MP quantification [87], potentially resulting in over-estimating MP contami-
nation. Conversely, the a priori exclusion of microfibres in marine samples as potential
contamination [28, 88] may result in under-estimates of MP bioaccumulation. Combined,
while findings are based on the most exhaustive review of the global literature on MP contami-
nation in marine organisms to date, future MP bioaccumulation estimates will likely be more
robust with the development of agreed standardized procedures for sample processing and
MP characterisation [1].
Bioaccumulation of chemical additives associated with MP uptake has been reported upon
much less frequently than physical MP bioaccumulation, both in situ and in controlled labora-
tory experiments. Across all three marine species collected from the field, namely the clam Cer-
astoderma edule, the mussel Mytilus edulis, and the ascidian Microcosmus exasperatus, the
concentrations of individual or combined phthalates were highest among the different chemi-
cal additives examined [54, 62]. This is not surprising as phthalates are primarily used as plasti-
cisers and commonly detected in the oceanic environment [3]. Indeed, other studies have
speculated chemical contamination of marine organisms that was indicative of plastic contam-
ination in the marine environment [89, 90]. Interestingly, phthalate body burden did not
increase with MP bioaccumulation across these three marine species suggesting that the two
may not be positively correlated. A comparative study examining phthalate and MP body bur-
den within a single species across different levels of environmental contamination would fur-
ther elucidate uptake of chemical additives associated with MPs in situ. Indeed,
bioaccumulation of chemical additives was consistently, and often several magnitudes higher,
following laboratory exposures of additives only compared to additives on MPs [57, 59, 60, 67,
71]. Combined, these results would strongly suggest that environmental exposure to chemical
additives per se affects bioaccumulation in marine organisms more strongly than exposure to
chemical additives associated with MPs [91–93].
Comparing MP bioaccumulation to in situ MP exposure concentrations revealed that for
most, if not all, marine species the reported MP body burdens do not appear to support an
accumulation of MPs within species relative to the surrounding environment. However, differ-
ent reporting units for organismal and environmental contamination levels makes direct com-
parisons difficult, an issue identified for marine debris research previously [94]. Previous
studies detected higher number of MP particles in coastal fish collected from locations with
higher MP particles in surrounding seawater and sediment [50]. While chemical additives
have been detected in field-collected marine species, neither of these studies measured their
concentrations in the surrounding environment [54, 62]. Repeated field sampling of marine
species, in particular from early to mature life history stages, combined with measurements of
exposure concentrations will assist in elucidating whether MPs and/or chemical additives
accumulate over time. Such studies would also provide critical information for more realistic
and comparative laboratory studies, including environmentally relevant exposure characteris-
tics such as concentrations, polymer type, and plastic size, shape and colour, a

recommendation raised in previous reviews [95–97]. Many of these characteristics have been
demonstrated to affect retention, and thus bioaccumulation of MPs [64, 98, 99], but have
rarely been examined using environmentally relevant exposures. Currently, comparisons
between exposure and uptake of MPs and chemical additives in controlled laboratory studies
are further complicated by the absence of measured versus nominal concentrations [16, 100].
Improved quantification of different exposure pathways, such as respiration, direct uptake or
indirect uptake via prey, would elucidate their relative importance in bioaccumulation. Such
research should also consider that MP uptake by marine organisms can be non-random [101]
and highly selective [102, 103], including active rejection of MPs [58, 104]. Taking these cave-
ats into account will result in improved estimates of bioaccumulation, subsequent trophic
transfer and potential biomagnification of MPs at higher trophic levels [75].
Evidence for biomagnification

For this study, biomagnification was defined as the increase in concentration of MPs (or
chemical additives) due to trophic transfer from lower to higher trophic levels [24, 25]. The
findings on bioaccumulation for different trophic levels do not support in situ biomagnifica-
tion of either MPs or associated additives within a general marine food web. More specifically,
there is no evidence based on current, published findings for an increase in average bioaccu-
mulation of MPs and associated additives from lower to higher trophic levels across a general
marine food web. In fact, trophic level 2.4 (secondary consumers) exhibited by far the highest
average MP bioaccumulation, and trophic level 2 (primary consumers) showed the highest val-
ues of MP body burden across the general marine food web. These findings, based on a broad
overview, do not negate the notion that trends of MP biomagnification may differ when taking
a targeted approach based on smaller geographic scales, on species-specific food chains, or on
future projections of MP contamination. Additionally, the lack of evidence for in situ biomag-
nification of chemical additives as a result of MP uptake is primarily due to a lack of suitable
data to support or refute such biomagnification. Such lack of data does not equate to evidence
for or against biomagnification, a concept previously addressed for the MP literature [105],
but rather that it remains uncertain based on current, published findings. This highlights the
need for more careful inference of potential effects and ecological risks of marine MP contami-
nation based on available evidence. Further, whether leaching of chemical additives from MPs
into organisms occurs is currently unclear and requires further investigation for assessments
of potential bioaccumulation and biomagnification. In laboratory experiments, trophic trans-
fer has been reported from the mussel Mytilus edulis to the crab Carcinus maenas [4, 73]; how-
ever, it is unclear whether this resulted in biomagnification as MP presence in either prey or
predator was not quantified. Importantly, the immediate consumption of contaminated mus-
sels disregards bioaccumulation kinetics of MPs in prey and predator-prey interactions that
would occur in the field [75, 91]. If trophic transfer of MPs is occurring in situ, results of this
study imply that MPs ingested via prey items are not being completely retained within the next
tropic level. Rather, MPs may become entangled in biological material during digestion by the
predator and simply pass through as egested material. One line of evidence for trophic transfer
in the field would be to document contaminated prey items from within the digestive tract of a
consumer species, a feat not achieved so far for MPs. We are aware of only one study which
found plastic particles (size not reported) in post-hatchling sea turtle stomachs recovered from
fish [106]. Finally, bioaccumulation of chemical additives associated with MP ingestion in
the field has only been reported from a single trophic level [54, 62], while trophic transfer has
not been examined in controlled laboratory exposures, precluding analysis of potential
biomagnification.

Rather than biomagnification through trophic transfer, results of this study corroborate
previous studies that MP bioaccumulation is strongly linked with feeding strategies of marine
species [28, 29]. Field studies support this finding, with MP body burden being higher in
pelagic fish species compared to demersal species irrespective of trophic level [50]. MP bioac-
cumulation in fish larvae from the English Channel [53] were also higher compared to adult
fish from the Arctic [52], despite similar levels of MP contamination in surrounding waters.
This likely reflects their feeding strategies with fish larvae filter-feeding continuously and unse-
lectively on suspended particulate matter [53, 107], and adult Triglops nybelini and Boreogadus
saida being selective predators that feed with a striking manner [36]. Similarly, omnivorous
juveniles of the fish Girella laevifrons were shown to have a higher MP body burden (specific
quantity not reported) compared to other intertidal fish species categorised as grazing herbi-
vores or selective carnivores [29]. Higher MP contamination has been previously reported in
selective predators compared to deposit and filter feeders, although Bour et al. [28] suggest
caution in these results due to limited sample sizes and the exclusion of fibres. Further, expo-
sure to 50 MP ml-1 resulted in higher MP body burdens in the filter feeding mussel Mytilus
edulis [56] compared to the selective-feeding omnivorous shrimp Palaemonetes pugi [64],
despite a shorter exposure time. Comparative studies examining MP body burden in organ-
isms with varying feeding strategies following uniform exposures will aid quantifying the role
of feeding strategies in influencing bioaccumulation of MPs.
The rationale behind assessing whether MP concentrations increased from lower to higher
trophic levels stems from the classical concepts of bioaccumulation and biomagnification
which is primarily applied to dissolved chemicals [20]. For physical items such as MPs, these
end points may not completely suitable as chemicals and physical items would not interact
with a marine organism in similar ways. Rather, physical MPs generally only come into contact
with body cavities designed to pass material (i.e. gills or gastrointestinal tract). Translocation
into other organs may occur via phagocytosis, albeit this is size dependent favouring smaller
size classifications [108]. Conversely, chemicals are readily dissolved and the potential path-
ways for uptake by the marine organism are greater, including into organs other than gills and
gastrointestinal tracts. Therefore, whether the concepts of bioaccumulation and biomagnifica-
tion are suitable for assessing the ecological risks of MP contamination in marine environ-
ments needs further and more detailed consideration.
Conclusions
Bioaccumulation and biomagnification of MPs, and associated chemical additives, in marine
environments are often inferred in the literature on marine MP contamination. This review
demonstrates that MP contamination occurs across all five main trophic levels in a general
marine food web. Moreover, bioaccumulation of MPs occurs in numerous individual marine
species across four main trophic levels representing consumers. The relative importance of dif-
ferent exposure pathways contributing to MP bioaccumulation, however, is not necessarily
clear and needs further examination. While chemical additives have been detected in a few
marine species collected in situ, results from laboratory exposures indicate that environmental
exposure to chemical additives per se affects bioaccumulation more strongly than exposure to
chemical additives associated with MPs. In contrast to MP bioaccumulation, this meta-analysis
of in situ studies does not support biomagnification of MPs from lower to higher trophic levels
in a general marine food web, even though trophic transfer of MPs has been reported in a few
laboratory studies. Indeed, MP bioaccumulation appears to be more strongly linked with feed-
ing strategies, rather than trophic levels, of marine species. Finally, bioaccumulation and bio-
magnification are two critical concepts used in ecological risk assessments to determine the

extent of pollutant transport within food webs. This review highlights the need for targeted
field-based and experimental studies to elucidate the possible routes of uptake of MPs (and
associated chemicals) and provide confidence in the use of these endpoints in the MP
literature.
Supporting information
S1 File.
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
This work is part of MM’s PhD conducted at James Cook University (JCU) and the Australian
Institute of Marine Science (AIMS). The authors wish to acknowledge the traditional owners
of the land this work took place, specifically the Wulgurukaba and Bindal people. Special
thank you to Dr. Matthew Cole for insight regarding his previous work on copepods.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Michaela E. Miller, Frederieke J. Kroon.
Data curation: Michaela E. Miller.
Formal analysis: Michaela E. Miller.
Funding acquisition: Michaela E. Miller.
Methodology: Michaela E. Miller.
Project administration: Frederieke J. Kroon.
Supervision: Mark Hamann, Frederieke J. Kroon.
Validation: Michaela E. Miller.
Writing – original draft: Michaela E. Miller, Frederieke J. Kroon.
Writing – review & editing: Michaela E. Miller, Mark Hamann, Frederieke J. Kroon.
References
1. GESAMP. Guidelines or the monitoring and assessment of plastic litter and microplastics in the
ocean. In: Kershaw PJ, Turra A, Galgani F, editors. Rep. Stud. GESAMP No. 99, 130p. ed: IMO/FAO/
UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNDP/ISA Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific
Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection; 2019.
2. Lusher A. Microplastics in the marine environment: distribution, interactions and effects. Marine
anthropogenic litter: Springer, Cham; 2015. p. 245–307.
3. Hermabessiere L, Dehaut A, Paul-Pont I, Lacroix C, Jezequel R, Soudant P, et al. Occurrence and
effects of plastic additives on marine environments and organisms: A review. Chemosphere. 2017;
182:781–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.05.096 PMID: 28545000
4. Farrell P, Nelson K. Trophic level transfer of microplastic: Mytilus edulis (L.) to Carcinus maenas (L.).
Environ Pollut. 2013; 177:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.01.046 PMID: 23434827
5. Nelms SE, Galloway TS, Godley BJ, Jarvis DS, Lindeque PK. Investigating microplastic trophic trans-
fer in marine top predators. Environ Pollut. 2018; 238:999–1007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.
2018.02.016 PMID: 29477242
6. Zhao SY, Ward JE, Danley M, Mincer TJ. Field-based evidence for microplastic in marine aggregates
and mussels: Implications for trophic transfer. Environ Sci Technol. 2018; 52(19):11038–48. https://
doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b03467 PMID: 30156835

7. GESAMP. Proceedings of the GESAMP International Workshop on assessing the risks associated
with plastics and microplastics in the marine environment. In: Kershaw PJ, Carney Almroth B, Villarru-
bia-Gomez P, Koelmans AA, Gouin T, editors. Reports to GESMAP No. 103, 68 pp. ed: IMO/FAO/
UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/ UNEP/UNDP/ISA Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific
Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection; 2020.
8. USEPA. Guidelines for Exposure Assessment. In: Agency USEP, editor. Washington, D.C.1992.
p. 126.
9. Xu XY, Lee WT, Chan AKY, Lo HS, Shin PKS, Cheung SG. Microplastic ingestion reduces energy
intake in the clam Atactodea striata. Mar Pollut Bull. 2017; 124(2):798–802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2016.12.027 PMID: 28038767
10. Barboza LGA, Vieira LR, Branco V, Carvalho C, Guilherminol L. Microplastics increase mercury bio-
concentration in gills and bioaccumulation in the liver, and cause oxidative stress and damage in
Dicentrarchus labrax juveniles. Sci Rep. 2018; 8:9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-18427-2
PMID: 29311680
11. Gardon T, Reisser C, Soyez C, Quillien V, Le Moullac G. Microplastics affect energy balance and
gametogenesis in the pearl oyster Pinctada margaritifera. Environ Sci Technol. 2018; 52(9):5277–86.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b00168 PMID: 29620881
12. Lu YF, Zhang Y, Deng YF, Jiang W, Zhao YP, Geng JJ, et al. Uptake and accumulation of polystyrene
microplastics in zebrafish (Danio rerio) and toxic effects in liver. Environ Sci Technol. 2016; 50
(7):4054–60. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b00183 PMID: 26950772
13. Karami A, Romano N, Galloway T, Hamzah H. Virgin microplastics cause toxicity and modulate the
impacts of phenanthrene on biomarker responses in African catfish (Clarias gariepinus). Environ Res.
2016; 151:58–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2016.07.024 PMID: 27451000
14. Lo HKA, Chan KYK. Negative effects of microplastic exposure on growth and development of Crepi-
dula onyx. Environ Pollut. 2018; 233:588–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.10.095 PMID:
29107898
15. Chapron L, Peru E, Engler A, Ghiglione JF, Meistertzheim AL, Pruski AM, et al. Macro- and microplas-
tics affect cold-water corals growth, feeding and behaviour. Sci Rep. 2018; 8:8. https://doi.org/10.
1038/s41598-017-18329-3 PMID: 29311689
16. Cole M, Lindeque P, Fileman E, Halsband C, Galloway TS. The impact of polystyrene microplastics on
feeding, function and fecundity in the marine copepod Calanus helgolandicus. Environ Sci Technol.
2015; 49(2):1130–7. https://doi.org/10.1021/es504525u PMID: 25563688
17. Besseling E, Wegner A, Foekema EM, van den Heuvel-Greve MJ, Koelmans AA. Effects of microplas-
tic on fitness and PCB bioaccumulation by the lugworm Arenicola marina (L.). Environ Sci Technol.
2013; 47(1):593–600. https://doi.org/10.1021/es302763x PMID: 23181424
18. Koelmans AA, Besseling E, Foekema E, Kooi M, Mintenig S, Ossendorp BC, et al. Risks of plastic
debris: Unravelling fact, opinion, perception, and belief. Environ Sci Technol. 2017; 51(20):11513–9.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b02219 PMID: 28971682
19. Boethling RS, Mackay D. Handbook of property estimation methods for chemicals: Environmental
health sciences: CRC press; 2000.
20. Alexander DE. Bioaccumulation, bioconcentration, biomagnification. Environmental Geology. Dor-
drecht: Springer Netherlands; 1999. p. 43–4.
21. Dawson A, Huston W, Kawaguchi S, King C, Cropp R, Wild S, et al. Uptake and depuration kinetics
influence microplastic bioaccumulation and toxicity in Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba). Environ Sci
Technol. 2018; 52(5):3195–201. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b05759 PMID: 29397707
22. Akhbarizadeh R, Moore F, Keshavarzi B. Investigating microplastics bioaccumulation and biomagnifi-
cation in seafood from the Persian Gulf: a threat to human health? Food Addit Contam Part A-Chem.
2019; 36(11):1696–708.
23. Rochman CM, Brookson C, Bikker J, Djuric N, Earn A, Bucci K, et al. Rethinking microplastics as a
diverse contaminant suite. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2019; 38(4):703–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.
4371 PMID: 30909321
24. Gerber K. User’s guide and technical documentation KABAM version 1.0 (Kow (based) Aquatic Bioac-
cumulation Model). Report of Environmental Fate and Effects Division Office of Pesticide Programs,
US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 2009.
25. Maher B, Taylor A, Batley G, Simpson S. Bioaccumulation. Sediment quality assessment: a practical
guide: CSIRO Publishing; 2016. p. 123–56.
26. Wang JD, Tan Z, Peng JP, Qiu QX, Li MM. The behaviors of microplastics in the marine environment.
Mar Environ Res. 2016; 113:7–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2015.10.014 PMID: 26559150

27. Kelly BC, Ikonomou MG, Blair JD, Morin AE, Gobas FA. Food web–specific biomagnification of persis-
tent organic pollutants. Science. 2007; 317(5835):236–9. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1138275
PMID: 17626882
28. Bour A, Avio CG, Gorbi S, Regoli F, Hylland K. Presence of microplastics in benthic and epibenthic
organisms: Influence of habitat, feeding mode and trophic level. Environ Pollut. 2018; 243:1217–25.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.09.115 PMID: 30267918
29. Mizraji R, Ahrendt C, Perez-Venegas D, Vargas J, Pulgar J, Aldana M, et al. Is the feeding type related
with the content of microplastics in intertidal fish gut? Mar Pollut Bull. 2017; 116(1–2):498–500. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.01.008 PMID: 28063703
30. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews
and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009; 6(7):e1000097. https://doi.org/10.
1371/journal.pmed.1000097 PMID: 19621072
31. Hahladakis JN, Velis CA, Weber R, Iacovidou E, Purnell P. An overview of chemical additives present
in plastics: Migration, release, fate and environmental impact during their use, disposal and recycling.
J Hazard Mater. 2018; 344:179–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2017.10.014 PMID: 29035713
32. Hermsen E, Mintenig SM, Besseling E, Koelmans AA. Quality criteria for the analysis of microplastic in
biota samples: A critical review. Environ Sci Technol. 2018; 52(18):10230–40. https://doi.org/10.1021/
acs.est.8b01611 PMID: 30137965
33. Van Cauwenberghe L, Vanreusel A, Mees J, Janssen CR. Microplastic pollution in deep-sea sedi-
ments. Environ Pollut. 2013; 182:495–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.08.013 PMID:
24035457
34. Arthur C, Baker J, Bamford H, editors. Proceedings of the international research workshop on the
occurrence, effects and fate of micro-plastic marine debris. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS-
OR&R-30; 2009 Sept 9–11; University of Washington Tacoma, Tacoma, Washington.
35. Hartmann NB, Huffer T, Thompson RC, Hassellov M, Verschoor A, Daugaard AE, et al. Are we speak-
ing the same language? Recommendations for a definition and categorization framework for plastic
debris. Environ Sci Technol. 2019; 53(3):1039–47. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b05297 PMID:
30608663
36. Froese R, Pauly D, eds., 2019. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. www.fishbase.org,
version (12/2019)
37. Palomares M, Pauly D, eds., 2019. SeaLifeBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. www.
sealifebase.org, version (12/2019)
38. Horton T, Kroh A, Ahyong S, Bailly N, Boyko CB, Brandão SN, et al., eds., 2019. World Register of
Marine Species (WORMS)http://www.marinespecies.org, version (2019-08-07)
39. Zhang C, Chen XH, Wang JT, Tan LJ. Toxic effects of microplastic on marine microalgae Skeleto-
nema costatum: Interactions between microplastic and algae. Environ Pollut. 2017; 220:1282–8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.11.005 PMID: 27876228
40. Rummel CD, Loder MGJ, Fricke NF, Lang T, Griebeler EM, Janke M, et al. Plastic ingestion by pelagic
and demersal fish from the north sea and baltic sea. Mar Pollut Bull. 2016; 102(1):134–41. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.11.043 PMID: 26621577
41. Desforges JPW, Galbraith M, Ross PS. Ingestion of microplastics by zooplankton in the northeast
Pacific Ocean. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2015; 69(3):320–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-
015-0172-5 PMID: 26066061
42. Ogden JC. Some aspects of herbivore-plant relationships on Caribbean reefs and seagrass beds.
Aquatic Botany. 1976; 2:103–16.
43. Hyatt KD. Feeding strategy. Bioenergetics and Growth. Fish Physiology1979. p. 71–119.
44. Britton JC, Morton B. Marine carrion and scavengers. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an annual
review. 1994.
45. Goss H, Jaskiel J, Rotjan R. Thalassia testudinum as a potential vector for incorporating microplastics
into benthic marine food webs. Mar Pollut Bull. 2018; 135:1085–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.
2018.08.024 PMID: 30301005
46. Karlsson TM, Vethaak AD, Almroth BC, Ariese F, van Velzen M, Hassellov M, et al. Screening for
microplastics in sediment, water, marine invertebrates and fish: Method development and microplastic
accumulation. Mar Pollut Bull. 2017; 122(1–2):403–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.06.081
PMID: 28689849
47. Kosore C, Ojwang L, Maghanga J, Kamau J, Kimeli A, Omukoto J, et al. Occurrence and ingestion of
microplastics by zooplankton in Kenya’s marine environment: First documented evidence. Afr J Mar
Sci. 2018; 40(3):225–34.

48. Lourenço PM, Serra-Goncalves C, Ferreira JL, Catry T, Granadeiro JP. Plastic and other microfibers
in sediments, macroinvertebrates and shorebirds from three intertidal wetlands of southern Europe
and west Africa. Environ Pollut. 2017; 231:123–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.07.103
PMID: 28797901
49. Wang J, Wang MX, Ru SG, Liu XS. High levels of microplastic pollution in the sediments and benthic
organisms of the South Yellow Sea, China. Sci Total Environ. 2019; 651:1661–9. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.007 PMID: 30316086
50. Guven O, Gokdag K, Jovanovic B, Kideys AE. Microplastic litter composition of the Turkish territorial
waters of the Mediterranean Sea, and its occurrence in the gastrointestinal tract of fish. Environ Pollut.
2017; 223:286–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.01.025 PMID: 28117186
51. Collicutt B, Juanes F, Dudas SE. Microplastics in juvenile Chinook salmon and their nearshore envi-
ronments on the east coast of Vancouver Island. Environ Pollut. 2019; 244:135–42. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.envpol.2018.09.137 PMID: 30321708
52. Morgana S, Ghigliotti L, Estevez-Calvar N, Stifanese R, Wieckzorek A, Doyle T, et al. Microplastics in
the arctic: A case study with sub-surface water and fish samples off Northeast Greenland. Environ Pol-
lut. 2018; 242:1078–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.08.001 PMID: 30096546
53. Steer M, Cole M, Thompson RC, Lindeque PK. Microplastic ingestion in fish larvae in the western
English Channel. Environ Pollut. 2017; 226:250–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.03.062
PMID: 28408185
54. Hermabessiere L, Paul-Pont I, Cassone AL, Himber C, Receveur J, Jezequel R, et al. Microplastic
contamination and pollutant levels in mussels and cockles collected along the channel coasts. Environ
Pollut. 2019; 250:807–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.04.051 PMID: 31039474
55. Procter J, Hopkins FE, Fileman ES, Lindeque PK. Smells good enough to eat: Dimethyl sulfide (DMS)
enhances copepod ingestion of microplastics. Mar Pollut Bull. 2019; 138:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.marpolbul.2018.11.014 PMID: 30660250
56. Porter A, Lyons BP, Galloway TS, Lewis C. Role of marine snows in microplastic fate and bioavailabil-
ity. Environ Sci Technol. 2018; 52(12):7111–9. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b01000 PMID:
29782157
57. Chua EM, Shimeta J, Nugegoda D, Morrison PD, Clarke BO. Assimilation of polybrominated diphenyl
ethers from microplastics by the marine amphipod, Allorchestes compressa. Environ Sci Technol.
2014; 48(14):8127–34. https://doi.org/10.1021/es405717z PMID: 24884099
58. Kaposi KL, Mos B, Kelaher BP, Dworjanyn SA. Ingestion of microplastic has limited impact on a
marine larva. Environ Sci Technol. 2014; 48(3):1638–45. https://doi.org/10.1021/es404295e PMID:
24341789
59. Magara G, Elia AC, Syberg K, Khan FR. Single contaminant and combined exposures of polyethylene
microplastics and fluoranthene: Accumulation and oxidative stress response in the blue mussel, Myti-
lus edulis. J Toxicol Env Health Part A. 2018; 81(16):761–73.
60. Paul-Pont I, Lacroix C, Fernandez CG, Hegaret H, Lambert C, Le Goic N, et al. Exposure of marine
mussels Mytilus spp. to polystyrene microplastics: Toxicity and influence on fluoranthene bioaccumu-
lation. Environ Pollut. 2016; 216:724–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.06.039 PMID:
27372385
61. O’Donovan S, Mestre NC, Abel S, Fonseca TG, Carteny CC, Cormier B, et al. Ecotoxicological effects
of chemical contaminants adsorbed to microplastics in the clam Scrobicularia plana. Front Mar Sci.
2018; 5:15.
62. Vered G, Kaplan A, Avisar D, Shenkar N. Using solitary ascidians to assess microplastic and phthalate
plasticizers pollution among marine biota: A case study of the eastern Mediterranean and Red Sea.
Mar Pollut Bull. 2019; 138:618–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.12.013 PMID: 30660313
63. Critchell K, Hoogenboom MO. Effects of microplastic exposure on the body condition and behaviour of
planktivorous reef fish (Acanthochromis polyacanthus). PLoS One. 2018; 13(3):19.
64. Gray AD, Weinstein JE. Size- and shape-dependent effects of microplastic particles on adult dagger-
blade grass shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio). Environ Toxicol Chem. 2017; 36(11):3074–80. https://doi.
org/10.1002/etc.3881 PMID: 28594093
65. Capolupo M, Franzellitti S, Valbonesi P, Lanzas CS, Fabbri E. Uptake and transcriptional effects of
polystyrene microplastics in larval stages of the Mediterranean mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis. Envi-
ron Pollut. 2018; 241:1038–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.06.035 PMID: 30029311
66. Avio CG, Gorbi S, Milan M, Benedetti M, Fattorini D, d’Errico G, et al. Pollutants bioavailability and toxi-
cological risk from microplastics to marine mussels. Environ Pollut. 2015; 198:211–22. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envpol.2014.12.021 PMID: 25637744

67. Pittura L, Avio CG, Giuliani ME, d’Errico G, Keiter SH, Cormier B, et al. Microplastics as vehicles of
environmental pahs to marine organisms: Combined chemical and physical hazards to the Mediterra-
nean mussels, Mytilus galloprovincialis. Front Mar Sci. 2018; 5:15.
68. Mazurais D, Ernande B, Quazuguel P, Severe A, Huelvan C, Madec L, et al. Evaluation of the impact
of polyethylene microbeads ingestion in European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) larvae. Mar Envi-
ron Res. 2015; 112:78–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2015.09.009 PMID: 26412109
69. Ory NC, Gallardo C, Lenz M, Thiel M. Capture, swallowing, and egestion of microplastics by a plankti-
vorous juvenile fish. Environ Pollut. 2018; 240:566–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.04.093
PMID: 29758531
70. Jovanovic B, Gokdag K, Guven O, Emre Y, Whitley EM, Kideys AE. Virgin microplastics are not caus-
ing imminent harm to fish after dietary exposure. Mar Pollut Bull. 2018; 130:123–31. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.marpolbul.2018.03.016 PMID: 29866538
71. Devriese LI, De Witte B, Vethaak AD, Hostens K, Leslie HA. Bioaccumulation of PCBs from microplas-
tics in Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus): An experimental study. Chemosphere. 2017; 186:10–6.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.07.121 PMID: 28759812
72. Birnstiel S, Soares-Gomes A, da Gama BAP. Depuration reduces microplastic content in wild and
farmed mussels. Mar Pollut Bull. 2019; 140:241–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.01.044
PMID: 30803639
73. Watts AJR, Lewis C, Goodhead RM, Beckett SJ, Moger J, Tyler CR, et al. Uptake and retention of
microplastics by the shore crab Carcinus maenas. Environ Sci Technol. 2014; 48(15):8823–30.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es501090e PMID: 24972075
74. Kühn S, Rebolledo ELB, van Franeker JA. Deleterious effects of litter on marine life. Marine anthropo-
genic litter: Springer, Cham; 2015. p. 75–116.
75. Provencher JF, Ammendolia J, Rochman CM, Mallory ML. Assessing plastic debris in aquatic food
webs: what we know and don’t know about uptake and trophic transfer. Environ Rev. 2019; 27(3):304–
17.
76. Vendel AL, Bessa F, Alves VEN, Amorim ALA, Patricio J, Palma ART. Widespread microplastic inges-
tion by fish assemblages in tropical estuaries subjected to anthropogenic pressures. Mar Pollut Bull.
2017; 117(1–2):448–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.01.081 PMID: 28214011
77. Pegado T, Schmid K, Winemiller KO, Chelazzi D, Cincinelli A, Dei L, et al. First evidence of microplas-
tic ingestion by fishes from the Amazon River estuary. Mar Pollut Bull. 2018; 133:814–21. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.06.035 PMID: 30041381
78. Baalkhuyur FM, Bin Dohaish EJA, Elhalwagy MEA, Alikunhi NM, AlSuwailem AM, Rostad A, et al.
Microplastic in the gastrointestinal tract of fishes along the Saudi Arabian Red Sea coast. Mar Pollut
Bull. 2018; 131:407–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.04.040 PMID: 29886965
79. Kroon FJ, Motti CE, Jensen LH, Berry KL. Classification of marine microdebris: A review and case
study on fish from the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Sci Rep. 2018; 8(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41598-017-17765-5 PMID: 29311619
80. McGoran AR, Cowie PR, Clark PF, McEvoy JP, Morritt D. Ingestion of plastic by fish: A comparison of
Thames Estuary and Firth of Clyde populations. Mar Pollut Bull. 2018; 137:12–23. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.marpolbul.2018.09.054 PMID: 30503418
81. Harris CA, Scott AP, Johnson AC, Panter GH, Sheahan D, Roberts M, et al. Principles of sound eco-
toxicology. Environ Sci Technol. 2014; 48(6):3100–11. https://doi.org/10.1021/es4047507 PMID:
24512103
82. Hanson M, Deeth L, Prosser R. Evidence of citation bias in the pesticide ecotoxicology literature. Eco-
toxicology. 2018; 27(7):1039–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-018-1918-4 PMID: 29500667
83. Hidalgo-Ruz V, Gutow L, Thompson RC, Thiel M. Microplastics in the marine environment: A review of
the methods used for identification and quantification. Environ Sci Technol. 2012; 46(6):3060–75.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es2031505 PMID: 22321064
84. Miller ME, Kroon FJ, Motti CA. Recovering microplastics from marine samples: A review of current
practices. Mar Pollut Bull. 2017; 123(1–2):6–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.08.058
PMID: 28886920
85. Shim WJ, Hong SH, Eo SE. Identification methods in microplastic analysis: A review. Anal Methods.
2017; 9(9):1384–91.
86. Loder MGJ, Kuczera M, Mintenig S, Lorenz C, Gerdts G. Focal plane array detector-based micro-fou-
rier-transform infrared imaging for the analysis of microplastics in environmental samples. Environ
Chem. 2015; 12(5):563–81.

87. Kroon F, Motti C, Talbot S, Sobral P, Puotinen M. A workflow for improving estimates of microplastic
contamination in marine waters: A case study from North-Western Australia. Environ Pollut. 2018;
238:26–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.03.010 PMID: 29533881
88. Santana MFM, Ascer LG, Custodio MR, Moreira FT, Turra A. Microplastic contamination in natural
mussel beds from a brazilian urbanized coastal region: Rapid evaluation through bioassessment. Mar
Pollut Bull. 2016; 106(1–2):183–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.02.074 PMID: 26980138
89. Rochman CM, Lewison RL, Eriksen M, Allen H, Cook A-M, Teh SJ. Polybrominated diphenyl ethers
(PBDEs) in fish tissue may be an indicator of plastic contamination in marine habitats. Sci Total Envi-
ron. 2014; 476:622–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.01.058 PMID: 24496035
90. Fossi MC, Coppola D, Baini M, Giannetti M, Guerranti C, Marsili L, et al. Large filter feeding marine
organisms as indicators of microplastic in the pelagic environment: The case studies of the Mediterra-
nean basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) and fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus). Mar Environ Res.
2014; 100:17–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2014.02.002 PMID: 24612776
91. Diepens NJ, Koelmans AA. Accumulation of plastic debris and associated contaminants in aquatic
food webs. Environ Sci Technol. 2018; 52(15):8510–20. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b02515
PMID: 29925231
92. Koelmans AA, Besseling E, Wegner A, Foekema EM. Plastic as a carrier of POPs to aquatic organ-
isms: A model analysis. Environ Sci Technol. 2013; 47(14):7812–20. https://doi.org/10.1021/
es401169n PMID: 23758580
93. Barboza LGA, Vethaak AD, Lavorante B, Lundebye AK, Guilhermino L. Marine microplastic debris: An
emerging issue for food security, food safety and human health. Mar Pollut Bull. 2018; 133:336–48.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.05.047 PMID: 30041323
94. Provencher JF, Bond AL, Avery-Gomm S, Borrelle SB, Rebolledo ELB, Hammer S, et al. Quantifying
ingested debris in marine megafauna: a review and recommendations for standardization. Anal Meth-
ods. 2017; 9(9):1454–69.
95. Burns EE, Boxall ABA. Microplastics in the aquatic environment: Evidence for or against adverse
impacts and major knowledge gaps. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2018; 37(11):2776–96. https://doi.org/10.
1002/etc.4268 PMID: 30328173
96. Au SY, Lee CM, Weinstein JE, van den Hurk P, Klaine SJ. Trophic transfer of microplastics in aquatic
ecosystems: identifying critical research needs. Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2017; 13(3):505–9.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1907 PMID: 28440939
97. Cunningham EM, Sigwart JD. Environmentally accurate microplastic levels and their absence from
exposure studies. Integr Comp Biol. 2019; 59(6):1485–96. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icz068 PMID:
31127301
98. Graham P, Palazzo L, de Lucia GA, Telfer TC, Baroli M, Carboni S. Microplastics uptake and egestion
dynamics in Pacific oysters, Magallana gigas (Thunberg, 1793), under controlled conditions. Environ
Pollut. 2019; 252:742–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.06.002 PMID: 31195174
99. Xu JL, Thomas KV, Luo ZS, Gowen AA. FTIR and Raman imaging for microplastics analysis: State of
the art, challenges and prospects. Trac-Trends Anal Chem. 2019; 119:11.
100. Bour A, Haarr A, Keiter S, Hylland K. Environmentally relevant microplastic exposure affects sedi-
ment-dwelling bivalves. Environ Pollut. 2018; 236:652–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.02.
006 PMID: 29433106
101. Jensen LH, Motti CA, Garm AL, Tonin H, Kroon FJ. Sources, distribution and fate of microfibres on the
Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Sci Rep. 2019; 9(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-37186-2
PMID: 30626917
102. Ory NC, Sobral P, Ferreira JL, Thiel M. Amberstripe scad Decapterus muroadsi (Carangidae) fish
ingest blue microplastics resembling their copepod prey along the coast of Rapa Nui (Easter Island) in
the South Pacific subtropical gyre. Sci Total Environ. 2017; 586:430–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2017.01.175 PMID: 28196756
103. da Costa JP, Santos PSM, Duarte AC, Rocha-Santos T. (Nano)plastics in the environment—sources,
fates and effects. Sci Total Environ. 2016; 566:15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.041
PMID: 27213666
104. Kim SW, Chae Y, Kim D, An YJ. Zebrafish can recognize microplastics as inedible materials: Quantita-
tive evidence of ingestion behavior. Sci Total Environ. 2019; 649:156–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2018.08.310 PMID: 30173025
105. Koelmans B, Pahl S, Backhaus T, Bessa F, van Calster G, Contzen N, et al. A scientific perspective
on microplastics in nature and society: SAPEA; 2019.
106. Boyle M, Limpus C. The stomach contents of post-hatchling green and loggerhead sea turtles in the
southwest Pacific: an insight into habitat association. Mar Biol. 2008; 155(2):233–41.

107. Lazzaro X. A review of planktivorous fishes: their evolution, feeding behaviours, selectivities, and
impacts. Hydrobiologia. 1987; 146(2):97–167.
108. Browne MA, Dissanayake A, Galloway TS, Lowe DM, Thompson RC. Ingested microscopic plastic
translocates to the circulatory system of the mussel, Mytilus edulis (L.). Environ Sci Technol. 2008; 42
(13):5026–31. https://doi.org/10.1021/es800249a PMID: 18678044

1
Bioacccumulation and biomagnification of microplastics in marine organisms: A review and
meta-analysis of current data
Supporting Information
Michaela E. Miller1,2,3*, Mark Hamann3, and Frederieke J. Kroon1,2
1
Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), Townsville, Queensland 4810, Australia
2
AIMS@JCU, Division of Research and Innovation, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland 4811,
Australia
3
College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia
*Corresponding author
E-mail: m.miller@aims.gov.au (MM)

2
Table of Contents
Tables ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 4
S1 Table. PRISMA Checklist for systematic review and meta-analysis. .................................................................................... 4
S2 Table. Full-text articles excluded from (a) and included in (b) the present study ................................................................. 7
(a) Publications excluded ............................................................................................................................................... 7
(b) Publications included .............................................................................................................................................. 10
S3 Table. Bioaccumulation of (a) microplastics (MPs) for marine organisms collected in situ and (b) relevant data
calculations. ......................................................................................................................................................................... 12
(a) MP contamination for marine organisms in situ ....................................................................................................... 12
(b) MP contamination calculations................................................................................................................................ 27
S4 Table. Bioaccumulation of chemical additives associated with microplastic (MP) uptake for marine organisms collected in
situ. ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 29
S5 Table. Experimental details of microplastic laboratory exposures conducted with marine organisms ................................ 30
S6 Table. Trophic transfer of microplastics (MPs) for marine organisms. .............................................................................. 33
S7 Table. Experimental details of chemical additive laboratory exposure conducted with marine organisms .......................... 34
S8 Table. Number of field and laboratory studies investigating microplastic (MP) uptake in marine organisms for each trophic
level ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 36
Figures..................................................................................................................................................................................... 37
S1 Fig. Flow diagram outlining the standardisation of microplastic (MP) contamination data for marine organisms. ............ 37
References ............................................................................................................................................................................... 38
Abbreviations
ABS Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene

ASA Acrylonitrile styrene acrylate
BBP Benzyl butyl phthalate
CP Cellophane
DBP Dibutyl phthalate
DEP Diethyl phthalate
DEHA Diethylhexyl adipate
DEHP Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
DMP Dimethyl phthalate
DnOP Di-n-octylphthalate
EVA Ethylene-vinyl acetate
FTIR Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy
HBCD Hexabromocyclododecane
HDPE High Density Polyethylene
LDPE Low Density Polyethylene
LDPVC Low Density Polyvinyl Chloride
MDPE Medium Density Polyethylene
PA Polyamide
PAA Polyacrylic Acid
3
PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PAN Polyacrylonitrile
PBDE Polybrominated diphenyl ether
PC Polycarbonate
PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl
PE Polyethylene
PES Polyester
PET Polyethylene Terephthalate
PLA Polylactic Acid
PMMA Poly(methyl methacrylate)
PP Polypropylene
PS Polystyrene
PTFE Polytetrafluoroethylene
PUR Polyurethane
PVA Poly(vinyl alcohol)
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
VI Viscose
4
Tables
S1 Table. PRISMA Checklist for systematic review and meta-analysis.
Reported
Section/topic # Checklist item
on page #
TITLE
Title 1 Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both. 1
ABSTRACT
Structured summary 2 Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study 2
eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results;
limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
INTRODUCTION
Rationale 3 Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known. 5
Objectives 4 Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, 6
comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
METHODS
Protocol and registration 5 Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, N/A
provide registration information including registration number.
Eligibility criteria 6 Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years 7-8
considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Information sources 7 Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to 7-8
identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Search 8 Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could 7-8
be repeated.
Study selection 9 State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if 7-8
applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
Data collection process 10 Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any 7-8
processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
5
Data items 11 List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any 7-9
assumptions and simplifications made.
Risk of bias in individual 12 Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether 7
studies this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Summary measures 13 State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means). N/A
Synthesis of results 14 Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of 9
consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
Risk of bias across studies 15 Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, 27
selective reporting within studies).
Additional analyses 16 Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, N/A
indicating which were pre-specified.
RESULTS
Study selection 17 Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for 12
exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Study characteristics 18 For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up 12
period) and provide the citations.
Risk of bias within studies 19 Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item 12). N/A
Results of individual 20 For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each 12
studies intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
Synthesis of results 21 Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency. N/A
Risk of bias across studies 22 Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item 15). N/A
Additional analysis 23 Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item N/A
16]).
DISCUSSION
Summary of evidence 24 Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their 26
relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Limitations 25 Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete 27
retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Conclusions 26 Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future 31-32
6
research.
FUNDING
Funding 27 Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of 32
funders for the systematic review.
From: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The
PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(7): e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097. For more information, visit: www.prisma-statement.org.
7
S2 Table. Full-text articles excluded from (a) and included in (b) the present study. Reasons for exclusion, primarily around inability to standardise
contamination data given the information presented, are given. Main categories around field or laboratory-based studies for included papers have been
provided.
(a) Publications excluded
Reference Reason Cunha et al. [30] No quantification
Akhbarizadeh et al. [1] Inability to convert units Dantas et al. [31] Percentage only
Allen et al. [2] Inability to convert units Davarpanah and Guilhermino [32] No quantification
Asmonaite et al. [3] Does not mention ingestion Davison and Asch [33] No species-specific information
Barboza et al. [4] No quantification Dawson et al. [34] No quantification
Barboza et al. [5] No quantification Dawson et al. [35] Inability to convert units
Barboza et al. [6] No quantification de Orte et al. [36] Inability to convert units
Beiras and Tato [7] No quantification de Sa et al. [37] Inability to convert units
Beiras et al. [8] No quantification Detree and Gallardo-Escarate [38] No quantification
Bessa et al. [9] Not enough information Ding et al. [39] Range only
Besseling et al. [10] No quantification Ding et al. [40] MPs not from entire sample size
Bjorndal et al. [11] No size measurements Duncan et al. [41] No species-specific information
Bordbar et al. [12] Percentage only Egbeocha et al. [42] Review paper
Bour et al. [13] Percentage only Espinosa et al. [43] No quantification
Boyle and Limpus [14] No size measurements Fang et al. [44] Range only
Brate et al. [15] Not enough information Fernandez and Albentosa [45] Inability to convert units
Browne et al. [16] No quantification Ferreira et al. [46] Percentage only
Budimir et al. [17] Not enough information Ferreira et al. [47] No quantification
Bussolaro et al. [18] Nanoplastics only Ferreira et al. [48] No species-specific information
Cannon et al. [19] Percentage only Floren and Shugart [49] Focus on marine birds
Carreras-Colom et al. [20] Percentage only Fonte et al. [50] No quantification
Caruso et al. [21] No quantification Fossi et al. [51] MPs not investigated
Chagnon et al. [22] Not microplastics Fossi et al. [52] Quantity not given
Chapron et al. [23] No quantification Fossi et al. [53] Quantity not given
Cole and Galloway [24] No quantification Franzellitti et al. [54] No quantification
Cole et al. [25] No quantification Galgani et al. [55] No quantification
Compa et al. [26] Not enough information Gardon et al. [56] No quantification
Courtene-Jones et al. [27] Inability to convert units Garrido et al. [57] No quantification
Courtene-Jones et al. [28] Inability to convert units Gaspar et al. [58] No quantification
Courtene-Jones et al. [29] No trophic level Gassel and Rochman [59] Quantity not given
8
Gebhardt and Forster [60] No quantification Lo and Chan [94] No quantification
Goncalves et al. [61] No quantification Long et al. [95] No quantification
Granby et al. [62] No quantification Luan et al. [96] No quantification
Green [63] No quantification Luis et al. [97] No quantification
Green et al. [64] No quantification M'Rabet et al. [98] No quantification
Green et al. [65] No quantification Macali et al. [99] Quantity not given
Green et al. [66] No quantification Mao et al. [100] No quantification
Guebert-Bartholo et al. [67] Categories only Martinez-Gomez et al. [101] No quantification
Gutow et al. [68] No quantification Mathalon and Hill [102] No ingestion (fecal casts)
Gutow et al. [69] No quantification Mecozzi et al. [103] Method development only
Guven et al. [70] No quantification Messinetti et al. [104] Inability to convert units
Hall et al. [71] Inability to convert units Messinetti et al. [105] No quantification
Halstead et al. [72] Percentage only Miranda and de Carvalho-Souza [106] Range only
Hankins et al. [73] Inability to convert units Naidoo et al. [107] Percentage only
Hermabessiere et al. [74] Method development only Naidu [108] Quantity not given
Hermsen et al. [75] No species-specific information Naidu et al. [109] Quantity not given
Horn et al. [76] Not enough information Naji et al. [110] Not enough information
Jacob et al. [77] No quantification Nel and Froneman [111] No ingestion (tube structures)
Jamieson et al. [78] No trophic level Nobre et al. [112] No quantification
Jeong et al. [79] No quantification Okubo et al. [113] No quantification
Jung et al. [80] No species-specific information Oliviero et al. [114] No quantification
Jung et al. [81] Method development only Ory et al. [115] Percentage only
Karami et al. [82] Not enough information Peda et al. [116] No quantification
Khan and Prezant [83] Inability to convert units Peters et al. [117] No species-specific information
Khan et al. [84] No quantification Pham et al. [118] Not only microplastics
Kolandhasamy et al. [85] Not enough information Phuong et al. [119] Method development only
Kuhn et al. [86] Method development only Pozo et al. [120] Percentage only
Kumar et al. [87] Percentage only Prata et al. [121] No quantification
La Beur et al. [88] Not enough information Rebolledo et al. [122] Not only microplastics
Leung and Chan [89] No quantification Reichert et al. [123] Area investigated not mentioned
Li et al. [90] No quantification Reichert et al. [124] No quantification
Li et al. [91] Range only Remy et al. [125] Not microplastics
Liboiron et al. [92] Not only microplastics Renzi et al. [126] Not only microplastics
Liboiron et al. [93] Not only microplastics Renzi et al. [127] Not enough information
9
Ribeiro et al. [128] No quantification Wang et al. [162] No quantification
Rist et al. [129] No quantification Wang et al. [163] Range only
Rivera-Hernandez et al. [130] No quantification Watts et al. [164] No quantification
Roch and Brinker [131] MPs not from entire sample size Watts et al. [165] No quantification
Rochman et al. [132] MPs not investigated Welden and Cowie [166] Percentage only
Rochman et al. [133] Not only microplastics Welden and Cowie [167] No quantification
Romeo et al. [134] Not only microplastics Wesch et al. [168] Not only microplastics
Rosas-Luis [135] Not only microplastics White et al. [169] No species-specific information
Santana et al. [136] Percentage only Wieczorek et al. [170] Not enough information
Santana et al. [137] No quantification Wieczorek et al. [171] No quantification
Santana et al. [138] Inability to convert units Wilcox et al. [172] Not only microplastics
Savoca et al. [139] Percentage only Wojcik-Fudalewska et al. [173] Not microplastics
Schuyler et al. [140] No size measurements Woods et al. [174] Inability to convert units
Schuyler et al. [141] Review paper Wright et al. [175] No quantification
Seuront [142] No quantification Yu et al. [176] Inability to convert units
Silva et al. [143] No quantification Zhang et al. [177] No quantification
Sjollema et al. [144] No quantification Zhu et al. [178] No species-specific information
Smith [145] Not only microplastics Zhu et al. [179] No quantification
Sun et al. [146] Inability to convert units
Sun et al. [147] Inability to convert units
Sun et al. [148] No species-specific information
Sun et al. [149] No quantification
Sundbaek et al. [150] Inability to convert units
Sussarellu et al. [151] Inability to convert units
Syakti et al. [152] Inability to convert units
Syberg et al. [153] No quantification
Tang et al. [154] No quantification
Thiagarajan et al. [155] No quantification
Thushari et al. [156] Inability to convert units
Tosetto et al. [157] No quantification
Van Cauwenberghe and Janssen [158] Inability to convert units
van Franeker et al. [159] Not only microplastics
von Moos et al. [160] No quantification
Wang et al. [161] Method development only
10
(b) Publications included
Reference Category Collard et al. [208] Field MP Uptake
Abbasi et al. [180] Field MP Uptake Collard et al. [209] Field MP Uptake
Alomar and Deudero [181] Field MP Uptake Collicutt et al. [210] Field MP Uptake
Alomar et al. [182] Field MP Uptake Courtene-Jones et al. [29] Field MP Uptake
Arias et al. [183] Field MP Uptake Critchell and Hoogenboom [211] Lab MP Uptake
Avio et al. [184] Field MP Uptake Davidson and Dudas [212] Field MP Uptake
Avio et al. [185] Field MP Uptake Desforges et al. [213] Field MP Uptake
Avio et al. [186] Lab Chemical Devriese et al. [214] Field MP Uptake
Azad et al. [187] Field MP Uptake Devriese et al. [215] Lab Chemical
Baalkhuyur et al. [188] Field MP Uptake Digka et al. [216] Field MP Uptake
Bellas et al. [189] Field MP Uptake Donohue et al. [217] Field MP Uptake
Bernardini et al. [190] Field MP Uptake Duncan et al. [41] Field MP Uptake
Farrell and Nelson [218] Lab Trophic Transfer
Besseling et al. [191] Field MP Uptake
Ferreira et al. [219] Field MP Uptake
Besseling et al. [192] Lab MP Uptake
Birnstiel et al. [193] Field MP Uptake Foekema et al. [220] Field MP Uptake
Boerger et al. [194] Field MP Uptake Garnier et al. [221] Field MP Uptake
Bonello et al. [195] Field MP Uptake Giani et al. [222] Field MP Uptake
Bour et al. [196] Lab MP Uptake Goldstein and Goodwin [223] Field MP Uptake
Brate et al. [197] Field MP Uptake Goss et al. [224] Field MP Uptake
Brennecke et al. [198] Lab MP Uptake Gray and Weinstein [225] Lab MP Uptake
Guven et al. [226] Field MP Uptake
Capolupo et al. [199] Lab MP Uptake
Hamer et al. [227] Lab MP Uptake
Cardozo et al. [200] Field MP Uptake
Hermabessiere et al. [228] Field MP Uptake & Field Chemical
Caron et al. [201] Field MP Uptake
Hernandez-Gonzalez et al. [229] Field MP Uptake
Catarino et al. [202] Field MP Uptake
Herrera et al. [230] Field MP Uptake
Catarino et al. [203] Field MP Uptake
Jabeen et al. [231] Field MP Uptake
Cheung et al. [204] Field MP Uptake
Jeong et al. [232] Lab MP Uptake
Cho et al. [205] Field MP Uptake
Jovanovic et al. [233] Lab MP Uptake
Chua et al. [206] Lab MP Uptake & Lab Chemical
Kaposi et al. [234] Lab MP Uptake
Cole et al. [25] Lab Trophic Transfer
Karami et al. [235] Field MP Uptake
Cole et al. [207] Lab MP Uptake
11
Karlsson et al. [236] Field MP Uptake Phuong et al. [267] Field MP Uptake
Kosore et al. [237] Field MP Uptake Pittura et al. [268] Lab Chemical
Kroon et al. [238] Field MP Uptake Porter et al. [269] Lab MP Uptake
Kuhn et al. [239] Field MP Uptake Procter et al. [270] Lab MP Uptake
Li et al. [240] Field MP Uptake Qu et al. [271] Lab MP Uptake
Li et al. [241] Field MP Uptake Romeo et al. [272] Field MP Uptake
Li et al. [242] Field MP Uptake Rummel et al. [273] Field MP Uptake
Lourenço et al. [243] Field MP Uptake Setala et al. [274] Lab MP Uptake
Lusher et al. [244] Field MP Uptake Silva et al. [275] Field MP Uptake
Lusher et al. [245] Field MP Uptake Steer et al. [276] Field MP Uptake
Lusher et al. [246] Field MP Uptake Su et al. [277] Field MP Uptake
Magara et al. [247] Lab Chemical Sun et al. [278] Field MP Uptake
Mancuso et al. [248] Field MP Uptake Tanaka and Takada [279] Field MP Uptake
Markic et al. [249] Field MP Uptake Taylor et al. [280] Field MP Uptake
Mazurais et al. [250] Lab MP Uptake Teng et al. [281] Field MP Uptake
McGoran et al. [251] Field MP Uptake Vandermeersch et al. [282] Field MP Uptake
Mohsen et al. [252] Field MP Uptake Vendel et al. [283] Field MP Uptake
Morgana et al. [253] Field MP Uptake Vered et al. [284] Field MP Uptake & Field Chemical
Murphy et al. [254] Field MP Uptake Vroom et al. [285] Lab MP Uptake
Nadal et al. [255] Field MP Uptake Wagner et al. [286] Field MP Uptake
Naidoo et al. [256] Field MP Uptake Waite et al. [287] Field MP Uptake
Nelms et al. [257] Field MP Uptake Wang et al. [288] Field MP Uptake
Nelms et al. [258] Field MP Uptake Watts et al. [289] Lab Trophic Transfer
Neves et al. [259] Field MP Uptake Xiong et al. [290] Field MP Uptake
O'Donovan et al. [260] Lab Chemical Xu et al. [291] Lab MP Uptake
Ory et al. [261] Lab MP Uptake Zhao et al. [292] Field MP Uptake
Paul-Pont et al. [262] Lab Chemical Zhu et al. [293] Field MP Uptake
Pegado et al. [263] Field MP Uptake
Pellini et al. [264] Field MP Uptake
Perez-Venegas et al. [265] Field MP Uptake
Peters et al. [266] Field MP Uptake
12
S3 Table. Bioaccumulation of (a) microplastics (MPs) for marine organisms collected in situ and (b) relevant calculations for standardisation of MP
contamination data. Microplastic concentrations per individual (MPs individual-1, i.e. body-burden) were estimated for each species, with concentrations
representative of MPs per number of total organisms in the sample size for a particular species, rather than taken from only the number of organisms that
exhibited MP contamination. Also included are data calculations transforming MPs gram weight-1 to MPs individual-1, for in situ marine organisms exhibiting
MP contamination.
(a) MP contamination for marine organisms in situ
Trophic Area MP
Class Family Common Name Species Location n Reference
Level Investigated Individual-1
1 Magnoliopsida Hydrocharitaceae Seagrass Thalassia testudinum Belize WO 16 4.56 Goss et al. [224]
2 Actinopterygii Acanthuridae Surgeonfish Acanthurus lineatus South Pacific GI tract 24 0.25 Markic et al. [249]
Acanthurus sohal Red Sea GI tract 3 0 Baalkhuyur et al. [188]
Ctenochaetus striatus South Pacific GI tract 56 0.30 Markic et al. [249]
Boleophthalmus
Gobiidae Mudskipper China GI tract 9 5.30 Su et al. [277]
pectinirostris
Hemiramphidae Halfbeak Hyporhamphus unifasciatus Brazil GI tract 209 0.14 Vendel et al. [283]
Kyphosidae Chub Kyphosus sandwicensis South Pacific GI tract 39 4.72 Markic et al. [249]
Mugilidae Mullet Mugil curema Brazil GI tract 186 0.01 Vendel et al. [283]
Mugil curvidens Brazil GI tract 9 0 Vendel et al. [283]
Mugil hospes Brazil GI tract 28 0 Vendel et al. [283]
Mugil incilis Brazil GI tract 5 0 Vendel et al. [283]
Mugil liza Brazil GI tract 2 0 Vendel et al. [283]
Scaridae Parrotfish Nicholsina usta Brazil GI tract 2 0 Vendel et al. [283]
Scarus niger South Pacific GI tract 30 0.27 Markic et al. [249]
Scarus oviceps South Pacific GI tract 45 0.31 Markic et al. [249]
Scarus psittacus South Pacific GI tract 30 0.17 Markic et al. [249]
Siganidae Rabbitfish Siganus luridus Turkey GI tract 15 3.13 Guven et al. [226]
Siganus punctatus South Pacific GI tract 29 0.24 Markic et al. [249]
French
Siganus spp. GI tract 33 0.15 Garnier et al. [221]
Polynesia
Bivalvia Acrcidae Clam Senilia senilis Atlantic Ocean Soft tissue 20 1.00 Lourenço et al. [243]
Scapharca subcrenata China Soft tissue 6 46.52 Li et al. [240]
Tegillarca granosa China Soft tissue 18 5.16 Li et al. [240]
Cardiidae Clam Cerastoderma edule Atlantic Ocean Soft tissue 10 4.30 Lourenço et al. [243]
France Soft tissue 50 5.72 Hermabessiere et al. [228]
Mytilidae Mussel Modiolus modiolus UK Soft tissue 6 3.50 Catarino et al. [203]
Mytilus edulis China Soft tissue 1100 3.94 Li et al. [241]
13
Whole
Europe 125 0.73 Vandermeersch et al. [282]
animal
France Soft tissue 50 5.88 Hermabessiere et al. [228]
France Soft tissue 120 0.60 Phuong et al. [267]
North Sea Soft tissue 17 1.23 Karlsson et al. [236]
South Korea Soft tissue 60 0.68 Cho et al. [205]
UK Soft tissue 18 4.20 Catarino et al. [202]
UK Soft tissue 162 6.69 Li et al. [242]
USA GI tract 35 0.37 Zhao et al. [292]
Mytilus spp. Norway Soft tissue 332 1.50 Brate et al. [197]
UK Soft tissue 36 3.20 Catarino et al. [203]
Nuculidae Clam Acila mirabilis China Soft tissue 20 5.50 Wang et al. [288]
Ostreidae Oyster Alectryonella plicatula China Soft tissue 18 10.12 Li et al. [240]
Crassostrea gigas France Soft tissue 60 2.10 Phuong et al. [267]
Italy Soft tissue 100 0.18 Bonello et al. [195]
Crassostrea spp. China Soft tissue 306 3.98 Teng et al. [281]
Crassostrea virginica USA Soft tissue 90 16.47 Waite et al. [287]
Pectinidae Scallop Mizuhopecten yessoensis China Soft tissue 6 57.04 Li et al. [240]
Pharidae Clam Sinonovacula constricta China Soft tissue 6 15.06 Li et al. [240]
Semelidae Clam Scrobicularia plana Atlantic Ocean Soft tissue 10 3.30 Lourenço et al. [243]
Veneridae Clam Cyclina sinensis China Soft tissue 30 4.76 Li et al. [240]
Meretrix lusoria China Soft tissue 18 9.79 Li et al. [240]
Pelecyora isocardia Atlantic Ocean Soft tissue 20 1.50 Lourenço et al. [243]
Ruditapes philippinarum Canada Soft tissue 54 9.00 a Davidson and Dudas [212]
China Soft tissue 24 5.53 Li et al. [240]
Gastropoda Littorinidae Snail Littorina littorea North Sea Soft tissue 28 1.42 Karlsson et al. [236]
Whole
Hexanauplia Calanidae Copepod Neocalanus cristatus Pacific Ocean 960 0.03 Desforges et al. [213]
animal
Copepoda spp. Indian Ocean WO 110 0.33 Kosore et al. [237]
Malacostraca - Isopod Isopoda spp. North Sea Soft tissue 16 0.96 Karlsson et al. [236]
Polychaeta Nereidae Worm Hediste diversicolor Atlantic Ocean Soft tissue 10 2.70 Lourenço et al. [243]
Spionidae Worm Scolelepis squamata Atlantic Ocean Soft tissue 8 0.60 Lourenço et al. [243]
2.1 Actinopterygii Engraulidae Anchovy Cetengraulis edentulus Brazil GI tract 5 0 Vendel et al. [283]
14
Kyphosidae Chub Girella tricuspidata South Pacific GI tract 20 4.15 Markic et al. [249]
2.2 Actinopterygii Acanthuridae Unicornfish Naso unicornis South Pacific GI tract 30 0.23 Markic et al. [249]
Red Sea GI tract 2 0 Baalkhuyur et al. [188]
Mugilidae Mullet Ellochelon vaigiensis South Pacific GI tract 33 2.06 Markic et al. [249]
Ascidiacea Pyuridae Ascidian Herdmania momus Isreal Soft tissue 15 1.78 Vered et al. [284]
2.3 Actinopterygii Acanthuridae Unicornfish Naso lituratus South Pacific GI tract 28 0.25 Markic et al. [249]
Poeciliidae Guppy Poecilia vivipara Brazil GI tract 75 0.09 Vendel et al. [283]
Whole
2.32 Malacostraca Euphausiidae Krill Euphausia pacifica Pacific Ocean
animal
413 0.06 Desforges et al. [213]
2.37 Holothuroidea Stichopodidae Sea Cucumber Apostichopus japonicus China GI tract 200 10.15 Mohsen et al. [252]
All internal
- Sea Cucumber Holothurian spp. Indian Ocean 2 3.00 Taylor et al. [280]
cavities
2.38 Reptilia Cheloniidae Green Sea Turtle Chelonia mydas Australia GI tract 2 3.5 Caron et al. [201]
Global GI tract 51 1.09 Duncan et al. [294]
2.4 Actinopterygii Gerreidae Mojarras Diapterus auratus Brazil GI tract 29 0.97 Vendel et al. [283]
2.48 Bivalvia Mytilidae Mussel Perna perna Brazil Soft tissue 10 31.20 Birnstiel et al. [193]
2.5 Actinopterygii Mugilidae Mullet Liza haematocheila China GI tract 18 3.30 Jabeen et al. [231]
China GI tract 17 1.20 Su et al. [277]
Mugil cephalus China GI tract 60 2.25 Cheung et al. [204]
China GI tract 18 3.10 Jabeen et al. [231]
South Africa GI tract 70 3.80 Naidoo et al. [256]
South Pacific GI tract 22 0.27 Markic et al. [249]
Goldstein and Goodwin
2.58 Maxillopoda Lepadidae Barnacle Lepas spp. Pacific Ocean GI tract 385 1.35
[223]
2.6 Actinopterygii Clupeidae Sardine Sardinella albella Thailand Stomach 14 2.30 Azad et al. [187]
2.69 Bivalvia Mytilidae Mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis China Soft tissue 18 4.48 Li et al. [240]
Whole
Europe 300 0.76 Vandermeersch et al. [282]
animal
Ionian Sea Soft tissue 80 0.85 Digka et al. [216]
Italy Soft tissue 26 1.77 Avio et al. [185]
Flesh
2.7 Actinopterygii Mugilidae Mullet Planiliza subviridis Malaysia Viscera and 30 0.53 Karami et al. [235]
gills
Pomacanthidae Angelfish Pygoplites diacanthus Red Sea GI tract 5 0 Baalkhuyur et al. [188]
Pomacentridae Damselfish Abudefduf sexfasciatus Red Sea GI tract 5 0.20 Baalkhuyur et al. [188]
Scombridae Mackerel Rastrelliger brachysoma Thailand Stomach 3 1.00 Azad et al. [187]
15
2.71 Malacostraca Panopeidae Mud crab Panopeus herbstii USA Soft tissue 90 21.99 Waite et al. [287]
2.8 Actinopterygii Acanthuridae Surgeonfish Acanthurus gahhm Red Sea GI tract 10 0.10 Baalkhuyur et al. [188]
Clupeidae Shad Anodontostoma chacunda Thailand Stomach 14 2.00 Azad et al. [187]
Mugilidae Mullet Liza aurata Turkey GI tract 39 3.26 Guven et al. [226]
Pomacentridae Damselfish Dascyllus trimaculatus Red Sea GI tract 2 0 Baalkhuyur et al. [188]
Sparidae Bogue Boops boops Mediterranean GI tract 337 3.75 Nadal et al. [255]
Portugal Stomach 32 0.09 Neves et al. [259]
2.9 Actinopterygii Clupeidae Sardine Sardinella gibbosa Thailand Stomach 3 0.30 Azad et al. [187]
Sardinella jussieu Thailand Stomach 8 1.30 Azad et al. [187]
Engraulidae Anchovy Anchoa januaria Brazil GI tract 194 0.15 Vendel et al. [283]
Leiognathidae Ponyfish Eubleekeria splendens Thailand Stomach 10 1.00 Azad et al. [187]
Photopectoralis bindus China GI tract 18 4.10 Jabeen et al. [231]
2.92 Malacostraca Penaeidae Prawn Penaeus semisulcatus Persian Gulf WO 12 7.80 Abbasi et al. [180]
3 Actinopterygii Belonidae Needlefish Strongylura marina Brazil GI tract 4 0 Vendel et al. [283]
Engraulidae Anchovy Coilia nasus China GI tract 18 4.00 Jabeen et al. [231]
Gerreidae Mojarras Diapterus rhombeus Brazil GI tract 31 0.03 Vendel et al. [283]
Hyporhamphus roberti
Hemiramphidae Halfbeak Brazil GI tract 35 0.03 Vendel et al. [283]
roberti
Myctophidae Lanternfish Benthosema glaciale Atlantic Ocean GI tract 27 0.33 Lusher et al. [246]
Myctophidae spp. Global Stomach 13 0.38 Wagner et al. [286]
Sternoptychidae Hatchetfish Maurolicus muelleri Atlantic Ocean GI tract 282 0.03 Lusher et al. [246]
Anthozoa Actiniidae Anenome Actinia equina North Sea Soft tissue 7 0.41 Karlsson et al. [236]
Gastropoda Turritellidae Snail Turritellidae spp. North Sea Soft tissue 10 0.53 Karlsson et al. [236]
Polychaeta Glyceridae Worm Glycera alba Atlantic Ocean Soft tissue 1 3.00 Lourenço et al. [243]
Onuphidae Worm Diopatra neapolitana Atlantic Ocean Soft tissue 4 1.00 Lourenço et al. [243]
3.07 Malacostraca Varunidae Crab Hemigrapsus sanguineus North Sea Soft tissue 9 0.99 Karlsson et al. [236]
3.1 Actinopterygii Ammodytidae Sandlance Ammodytes personatus China GI tract 50 0.54 Sun et al. [278]
Cepolidae Bandfish Cepola macrophthalma UK GI tract 62 2.25 Lusher et al. [244]
Clupeidae Piquitinga Lile piquitinga Brazil GI tract 2 0 Vendel et al. [283]
Sardine Sardina pilchardus Ionian Sea GI tract 36 1.80 Digka et al. [216]
Mediterranean GI tract 99 1.78 Avio et al. [184]
North Sea Stomach 3 3.33 Collard et al. [208]
Turkey GI tract 7 2.14 Guven et al. [226]
Sprat Rhinosardinia bahiensis Brazil GI tract 179 0.19 Vendel et al. [283]
16
Engraulidae Anchovy Anchoviella commersonii China GI tract 30 0.40 Sun et al. [278]
Engraulis encrasicolus Mediterranean Livers 10 0.90 Collard et al. [209]
North Sea Stomach 3 4.30 Collard et al. [208]
Engraulis japonicus China GI tract 80 0.39 Sun et al. [278]
Japan GI tract 64 2.30 Tanaka and Takada [279]
Gadidae Cod Boreogadus saida Artic Stomach 72 0.03 Kuhn et al. [239]
Artic GI tract 85 0.22 Morgana et al. [253]
Lateolabracidae Seabass Lateolabrax japonicus China GI tract 18 2.10 Jabeen et al. [231]
Monacanthidae Filefish Meuschenia scaber South Pacific GI tract 19 0.74 Markic et al. [249]
Mullidae Mullet Mullus barbatus Ionian Sea GI tract 25 1.50 Digka et al. [216]
Mediterranean GI tract 11 1.57 Avio et al. [184]
Mediterranean GI tract 132 0.21 Giani et al. [222]
Spain GI tract 128 1.75 Bellas et al. [189]
Myctophidae Lanternfish Benthosema pterotum Red Sea GI tract 10 0.10 Baalkhuyur et al. [188]
Symbolophorus
Pacific Ocean Stomach 74 7.20 Boerger et al. [194]
californiensis
Pholidae Gunnel Pholis fangi China GI tract 79 0.48 Sun et al. [278]
Phosichthyidae Lightfish Vinciguerria mabahiss Red Sea GI tract 10 0 Baalkhuyur et al. [188]
Sciaenidae Croaker Micropogonias furnieri Argentina GI tract 20 12.10 Arias et al. [183]
Brazil GI tract 6 0 Pegado et al. [263]
Brazil GI tract 1 0 Vendel et al. [283]
Weakfish Cynoscion leiarchus Brazil GI tract 2 1.00 Pegado et al. [263]
Sternoptychidae Dragonfish Maurolicus mucronatus Red Sea GI tract 10 0.10 Baalkhuyur et al. [188]
3.19 Malacostraca Crangonidae Shrimp Crangon affinis China Soft tissue 10 29.40 Wang et al. [288]
Whole
Crangon crangon North Sea 165 1.23 Devriese et al. [214]
animal
UK GI tract 116 1.00 McGoran et al. [251]
Hawksbill Sea
Reptilia Cheloniidae Eretmochelys imbricata Pacific GI tract 1 2 Duncan et al. [294]
Turtle
3.2 Actinopterygii Alepocephalidae Slickhead Xenodermichthys copei Atlantic Ocean GI tract 5 1.20 Lusher et al. [246]
Atherinopsidae Silverside Atherinella brasiliensis Brazil GI tract 405 0.04 Vendel et al. [283]
Callionymidae Dragonet Callionymus planus China GI tract 18 4.80 Jabeen et al. [231]
Carangidae Mackerel Trachurus novaezelandiae South Pacific GI tract 31 0.03 Markic et al. [249]
Engraulidae Anchovy Coilia mystus China GI tract 9 0.33 Su et al. [277]
17
Gerreidae Mojarras Eucinostomus argenteus Brazil GI tract 98 0.01 Vendel et al. [283]
Hemiramphidae Halfbeak Hyporhamphus ihi South Pacific GI tract 24 0 Markic et al. [249]
Myctophidae Lancetfish Notoscopelus kroyeri Atlantic Ocean GI tract 417 0.16 Lusher et al. [246]
Lanternfish Hygophum reinhardtii Pacific Ocean Stomach 47 1.30 Boerger et al. [194]
Loweina interrupta Pacific Ocean Stomach 27 1.00 Boerger et al. [194]
Myliobatidae Stingray Rhinoptera bonasus Brazil GI tract 1 0 Pegado et al. [263]
Paralepididae Barracudina Arctozenus risso Atlantic Ocean GI tract 14 0.29 Lusher et al. [246]
Pleuronectidae Flounder Glyptocephalus cynoglossus UK GI tract 23 1.00 McGoran et al. [251]
Pleuronectes platessa Scotland GI tract 62 0.89 Murphy et al. [254]
Pleuronectes platessa UK GI tract 99 2.52 McGoran et al. [251]
Flesh
Scombridae Mackerel Rastrelliger kanagurta Malaysia Viscera and 30 0.10 Karami et al. [235]
gills
Soleidae Sole Solea solea Adriatic Sea GI tract 533 8.57 Pellini et al. [264]
Zoarcidae Eelpout Enchelyopus elongatus China GI tract 20 0.80 Sun et al. [278]
Elasmobranchii Narcinidae Stingray Narcine brasiliensis Brazil GI tract 6 0.50 Pegado et al. [263]
3.3 Actinopterygii Achiridae Sole Achirus declivis Brazil GI tract 7 0.14 Vendel et al. [283]
Trinectes paulistanus Brazil GI tract 3 0 Vendel et al. [283]
Argentinidae Argentine Argentina silus Scotland GI tract 15 0.07 Murphy et al. [254]
Ariidae Sea Catfish Sciades herzbergii Brazil GI tract 57 0.07 Vendel et al. [283]
Callionymidae Dragonet Callionymus lyra UK GI tract 50 1.80 Lusher et al. [244]
C. lyra larvae UK GI tract 86 0.02 Steer et al. [276]
Carangidae Mackerel Trachurus picturatus Portugal Stomach 29 0.03 Neves et al. [259]
Chaetodontidae Butterflyfish Chaetodon austriacus Red Sea GI tract 10 0.10 Baalkhuyur et al. [188]
Cottidae Sculpin Triglops nybelini Artic GI tract 71 0.39 Morgana et al. [253]
Flesh
Engraulidae Anchovy Stolephorus waitei Malaysia Viscera and 30 0.03 Karami et al. [235]
gills
Gobionellinae Goby Ctenogobius boleosoma Brazil GI tract 27 0.04 Vendel et al. [283]
Leiognathidae Ponyfish Aurigequula fasciata Thailand Stomach 3 1.30 Azad et al. [187]
Leiognathus berbis Thailand Stomach 8 0.90 Azad et al. [187]
Pleuronectidae Flounder Platichthys flesus North Sea GI tract 36 0.06 Rummel et al. [273]
Scotland GI tract 47 1.02 Murphy et al. [254]
18
Flesh
Sciaenidae Croaker Johnius belangerii Malaysia Viscera and 30 0.53 Karami et al. [235]
gills
Sciaenidae Croaker Stellifer brasiliensis Brazil GI tract 1 0 Vendel et al. [283]
Scombridae Mackerel Scomberomorus brasiliensis Brazil GI tract 1 0 Pegado et al. [263]
Sillaginidae Whiting Sillago sihama China GI tract 18 2.80 Jabeen et al. [231]
Persian Gulf WO 17 14.10 Abbasi et al. [180]
Soleidae Sole Buglossidium luteum UK GI tract 50 1.25 Lusher et al. [244]
Soleidae Sole Microchirus variegatus UK GI tract 51 1.50 Lusher et al. [244]
M. variegatus larvae UK GI tract 16 0.19 Steer et al. [276]
Sparidae Porgy Spondyliosoma cantharus Italy GI tract 5 3.65 Avio et al. [185]
Stromateidae Pomfret Pampus argenteus China GI tract 18 3.00 Jabeen et al. [231]
China GI tract 10 0.20 Sun et al. [278]
Olive Ridley Sea
3.38 Reptilia Cheloniidae
Turtle
Lepidochelys olivacea Pacific GI tract 1 1 Duncan et al. [294]
3.39 Reptilia Cheloniidae Flatback Sea Turtle Natator depressus Pacific GI tract 4 1.5 Duncan et al. [294]
3.4 Actinopterygii Atherinopsidae Silverside Atherinella blackburni Brazil GI tract 2 0 Vendel et al. [283]
Carangidae Scad Alepes melanoptera Thailand Stomach 8 1.30 Azad et al. [187]
Decapterus maruadsi China GI tract 78 0.41 Sun et al. [278]
Cheilodactylidae Morwong Nemadactylus macropterus South Pacific GI tract 23 0.30 Markic et al. [249]
Clupeidae Herring Clupea harengus North Sea Stomach 3 4.00 Collard et al. [208]
North Sea GI tract 566 0.03 Foekema et al. [220]
Engraulidae Anchovy Anchoa marinii Brazil GI tract 22 0.04 Vendel et al. [283]
Anchoa tricolor Brazil GI tract 6 0 Vendel et al. [283]
Anchovia clupeoides Brazil GI tract 10 0.10 Vendel et al. [283]
Gerreidae Mojarras Eugerres brasilianus Brazil GI tract 64 0.04 Vendel et al. [283]
Eucinostomus melanopterus Brazil GI tract 21 0 Vendel et al. [283]
Gobiidae Goby Ctenogobius stigmaticus Brazil GI tract 3 0 Vendel et al. [283]
Haemulidae Grunt Orthopristis chrysoptera Gulf of Mexico Stomach 157 0.54 Peters et al. [266]
Hemiramphidae Halfbeak Hyporhamphus intermedius China GI tract 18 3.70 Jabeen et al. [231]
Malacanthidae Tilefish Branchiostegus japonicus China GI tract 18 4.60 Jabeen et al. [231]
Thamnaconus
Monacanthidae Filefish China GI tract 18 7.20 Jabeen et al. [231]
septentrionalis
19
Myctophum
Myctophidae Lanternfish Pacific Ocean Stomach 462 6.00 Boerger et al. [194]
aurolanternatum
Oxudercidae Goby Tridentiger barbatus China GI tract 8 4.50 Su et al. [277]
Pleuronectidae Dab Limanda limanda North Sea GI tract 89 0.05 Rummel et al. [273]
Scotland GI tract 19 0.68 Murphy et al. [254]
Pleuronectidae Flounder Cleisthenes herzensteini China GI tract 36 0.44 Sun et al. [278]
Pristigasteridae Tardoore Opisthopterus tardoore Thailand Stomach 3 2.00 Azad et al. [187]
Sciaenidae Croaker Paralonchurus brasiliensis Brazil GI tract 6 0 Pegado et al. [263]
Scombridae Mackerel Scomber japonicus China GI tract 9 0.78 Su et al. [277]
Scorpaeniformes Poacher Agonus cataphractus UK GI tract 3 0 McGoran et al. [251]
Serranidae Seabass Serranus cabrilla Turkey GI tract 6 1.50 Guven et al. [226]
Sparidae Seabream Lithognathus mormyrus Turkey GI tract 46 0.63 Guven et al. [226]
Tetradontidae Pufferfish Sphoeroides testudineus Brazil GI tract 55 0.04 Vendel et al. [283]
3.5 Actinopterygii Achiridae Sole Achirus lineatus Brazil GI tract 10 0.20 Vendel et al. [283]
Ariidae Sea Catfish Bagre marinus Brazil GI tract 4 7.75 Pegado et al. [263]
Cathorops spixii Brazil GI tract 2 1.00 Vendel et al. [283]
Carangidae Scad Alepes apercna Thailand Stomach 3 2.00 Azad et al. [187]
Alepes kleinii Thailand Stomach 4 0.80 Azad et al. [187]
Decapterus macrosoma South Pacific GI tract 25 0.32 Markic et al. [249]
Cynoglossidae Tonguefish Cynoglossus abbreviatus China GI tract 18 6.90 Jabeen et al. [231]
Persian Gulf WO 11 12.00 Abbasi et al. [180]
Drepaneidae Sicklefish Drepane longimana Thailand Stomach 3 0.30 Azad et al. [187]
Elopidae Ladyfish Elops saurus Brazil GI tract 1 0 Vendel et al. [283]
Gobiidae Goby Gobionellus oceanicus Brazil GI tract 6 0 Vendel et al. [283]
Microgobius meeki Brazil GI tract 1 0 Vendel et al. [283]
Haemulidae Grunt Genyatremus luteus Brazil GI tract 8 0 Pegado et al. [263]
French
Holocentridae Soldierfish Myripristis spp. GI tract 33 0.27 Garnier et al. [221]
Polynesia
Labridae Wrasse Thalassoma rueppellii Red Sea GI tract 12 0.08 Baalkhuyur et al. [188]
Macrouridae Grenadier Coryphaenoides rupestris Scotland GI tract 5 0 Murphy et al. [254]
Mullidae Goatfish Upeneus pori Turkey GI tract 78 0.69 Guven et al. [226]
Mullet Mullus surmuletus Mediterranean GI tract 417 0.50 Alomar et al. [182]
20
Muraenesocidae Pike Conger Cynoponticus savanna Brazil GI tract 1 0 Pegado et al. [263]
Nemichthyidae Eel Nemichthys scolopaceus Atlantic Ocean GI tract 1 1.00 Lusher et al. [246]
Nemipteridae Bream Parascolopsis eriomma Red Sea GI tract 5 0.60 Baalkhuyur et al. [188]
Paralichthyidae Flounder Citharichthys macrops Brazil GI tract 7 0 Vendel et al. [283]
Etropus crossotus Brazil GI tract 1 0 Vendel et al. [283]
Pholidae Gunnel Pholis gunnellus UK GI tract 1 0 McGoran et al. [251]
Sciaenidae Croaker Bairdiella ronchus Brazil GI tract 4 0 Pegado et al. [263]
Dendrophysa russelii Thailand Stomach 3 0.30 Azad et al. [187]
Johnius carouna Thailand Stomach 20 3.80 Azad et al. [187]
Menticirrhus americanus Gulf of Mexico Stomach 150 0.57 Peters et al. [266]
Sparidae Pandora Pagellus erythrinus Ionian Sea GI tract 19 1.90 Digka et al. [216]
Pagellus erythrinus Turkey GI tract 54 0.63 Guven et al. [226]
Porgy Dentex macrophthalmus Portugal Stomach 1 1.00 Neves et al. [259]
Terapontidae Terapon Terapon theraps Thailand Stomach 5 0.80 Azad et al. [187]
Tetradontidae Pufferfish Sphoeroides greeleyi Brazil GI tract 31 0 Vendel et al. [283]
Elasmobranchii Dasyatidae Stingray Dasyatis zugei Thailand Stomach 3 0.30 Azad et al. [187]
Kemp’s Ridley Sea
Turtle
Lepidochelys kempii Atlantic GI tract 10 0.5 Duncan et al. [294]
Loggerhead Sea
Turtle
Caretta caretta Global GI tract 33 2.52 Duncan et al. [294]
3.6 Actinopterygii Anguillidae Eel Anguilla anguilla UK GI tract 2 2.00 McGoran et al. [251]
A. anguilla larvae UK GI tract 1 1.00 Steer et al. [276]
Carangidae Jack Caranx hippos Brazil GI tract 3 30.67 Pegado et al. [263]
Cottidae Sculpin Taurulus bubalis UK GI tract 3 2.00 McGoran et al. [251]
Cynoglossidae Tonguefish Cynoglossus robustus China GI tract 9 0.67 Su et al. [277]
Symphurus tessellatus Brazil GI tract 26 0.04 Vendel et al. [283]
Chilomycterus spinosus
Diodontidae Porcupinefish Brazil GI tract 1 0 Vendel et al. [283]
spinosus
Engraulidae Anchovy Setipinna taty China GI tract 20 0.35 Sun et al. [278]
Gempylidae Snoek Thyrsites atun South Pacific GI tract 28 0.61 Markic et al. [249]
Haemulidae Grunt Anisotremus surinamensis Brazil GI tract 1 0 Pegado et al. [263]
Anisotremus virginicus Brazil GI tract 1 0 Pegado et al. [263]
21
Conodon nobilis Brazil GI tract 8 0 Pegado et al. [263]
Haemulopsis corvinaeformis Brazil Stomach 44 1.25 Silva et al. [275]
Orthopristis ruber Brazil GI tract 2 0 Pegado et al. [263]
Pomadasys corvinaeformis Brazil GI tract 4 0 Vendel et al. [283]
Holocentridae Squirrelfish Neoniphon sammara Red Sea GI tract 5 0.20 Baalkhuyur et al. [188]
Sargocentron spiniferum Red Sea GI tract 5 0 Baalkhuyur et al. [188]
Mullidae Goatfish Upeneus moluccensis Turkey GI tract 18 0.78 Guven et al. [226]
Oxudercidae Goby Synechogobius ommaturus China GI tract 17 3.70 Su et al. [277]
Paralichthyidae Flounder Citharichthys spilopterus Brazil GI tract 12 0 Vendel et al. [283]
Platycephalidae Flathead Platycephalus indicus Persian Gulf WO 12 21.80 Abbasi et al. [180]
Heteropriacanthus
Priacanthidae Glasseye South Pacific GI tract 10 0.30 Markic et al. [249]
cruentatus
Sciaenidae Croaker Collichthys lucidus China GI tract 18 6.20 Jabeen et al. [231]
Scombridae Mackerel Scomber scombrus North Sea GI tract 51 0.03 Rummel et al. [273]
UK GI tract 31 0.58 Nelms et al. [257]
Sparidae Porgy Diplodus annularis Turkey GI tract 48 1.96 Guven et al. [226]
Pagrus auratus South Pacific GI tract 22 0.05 Markic et al. [249]
Tetraodontidae Pufferfish Colomesus psittacus Brazil GI tract 2 0 Pegado et al. [263]
Terapontidae Terapon Pelates quadrilineatus Turkey GI tract 135 1.48 Guven et al. [226]
Elasmobranchii Triakidae Houndshark Mustelus canis Brazil GI tract 2 0 Pegado et al. [263]
Mustelus higmani Brazil GI tract 3 0 Pegado et al. [263]
3.7 Actinopterygii Apogonidae Perch Apogon lineatus China GI tract 20 0.40 Sun et al. [278]
Batrachoididae Toadfish Batrachoides surinamensis Brazil GI tract 1 0 Pegado et al. [263]
Carangidae Mackerel Trachurus trachurus North Sea GI tract 100 0.01 Foekema et al. [220]
Scotland GI tract 5 0 Murphy et al. [254]
UK GI tract 56 1.50 Lusher et al. [244]
Moonfish Selene setapinnis Brazil GI tract 1 0 Pegado et al. [263]
Scad Alepes vari Thailand Stomach 3 1.70 Azad et al. [187]
Engraulidae Anchovy Lycengraulis grossidens Brazil GI tract 146 0.18 Vendel et al. [283]
Gadidae Cod Trisopterus minutus UK GI tract 50 2.00 Lusher et al. [244]
UK GI tract 1 0 McGoran et al. [251]
T. minutus larvae UK GI tract 53 0.02 Steer et al. [276]
22
Pout Trisopterus luscus UK GI tract 7 1.00 McGoran et al. [251]
Gobiidae Goby Bathygobius soporator Brazil GI tract 6 0 Vendel et al. [283]
Haemulidae Grunt Haemulon steindachneri Brazil GI tract 5 0 Pegado et al. [263]
Lethrinidae Bream Gnathodentex aureolineatus South Pacific GI tract 29 0.07 Markic et al. [249]
Polynemidae Threadfin Polydactylus oligodon Brazil GI tract 1 3.00 Pegado et al. [263]
Polydactylus virginicus Brazil GI tract 13 0 Pegado et al. [263]
Sciaenidae Croaker Johnius borneensis Thailand Stomach 3 1.00 Azad et al. [187]
Larimichthys crocea China GI tract 18 4.60 Jabeen et al. [231]
Larimichthys polyactis China GI tract 30 0.97 Sun et al. [278]
Scomberesocidae Saury Cololabis saira Pacific Ocean Stomach 54 3.20 Boerger et al. [194]
Sebastidae Rockfish Sebastiscus marmoratus China GI tract 18 4.20 Jabeen et al. [231]
Serranidae Grouper Epinephelus areolatus Red Sea GI tract 5 0.20 Baalkhuyur et al. [188]
Sparidae Seabream Sparus aurata Turkey GI tract 110 0.87 Guven et al. [226]
Triglidae Gurnard Chelidonichthys kumu China GI tract 177 0.45 Sun et al. [278]
Trigla lyra Portugal Stomach 31 0.26 Neves et al. [259]
3.8 Actinopterygii Carangidae Mackerel Trachurus mediterraneus Turkey GI tract 98 1.77 Guven et al. [226]
Leatherjacket Oligoplites saliens Brazil GI tract 2 0 Vendel et al. [283]
Haemulidae Grunt Haemulon plumierii Brazil GI tract 13 0 Pegado et al. [263]
Pomadasys incisus Turkey GI tract 29 0.79 Guven et al. [226]
Hexagrammidae Greenling Hexagrammos otakii China GI tract 40 0.38 Sun et al. [278]
Lethrinidae Bream Gymnocranius grandoculis Red Sea GI tract 10 0.20 Baalkhuyur et al. [188]
Lethrinidae Emperor Lethrinus microdon Red Sea GI tract 10 0.20 Baalkhuyur et al. [188]
Lutjanidae Snapper Lutjanus alexandrei Brazil GI tract 1 0 Vendel et al. [283]
Lutjanus synagris Brazil GI tract 2 0 Vendel et al. [283]
Brazil GI tract 2 0.50 Pegado et al. [263]
Pristipomoides multidens Red Sea GI tract 10 0.20 Baalkhuyur et al. [188]
Nemipteridae Bream Nemipterus randalli Turkey GI tract 135 1.31 Guven et al. [226]
Sciaenidae Weakfish Cynoscion jamaicensis Brazil GI tract 3 0 Pegado et al. [263]
Croaker Sciaena umbra Turkey GI tract 1 3.00 Guven et al. [226]
French
Serranidae Grouper Epinephelus merra GI tract 33 0.39 Garnier et al. [221]
Polynesia
Soapfish Rypticus randalli Brazil GI tract 1 0 Vendel et al. [283]
Sparidae Seabream Pagellus acarne Portugal Stomach 1 1.00 Neves et al. [259]
Sparidae Seabream Pagellus acarne Turkey GI tract 52 1.63 Guven et al. [226]
23
Triglidae Gurnard Chelidonichthys cuculus UK GI tract 55 2.00 Lusher et al. [244]
Prionotus punctatus Brazil GI tract 1 0 Vendel et al. [283]
Elasmobranchii Rajidae Ray Raja asterias Portugal Stomach 7 0.57 Neves et al. [259]
Raja clavata UK GI tract 7 1.00 McGoran et al. [251]
Scyliorhinidae Dogfish Scyliorhinus canicula Portugal Stomach 20 0.40 Neves et al. [259]
3.9 Actinopterygii Butidae Goby Oxyeleotris marmorata China GI tract 18 4.20 Jabeen et al. [231]
Carangidae Scad Megalaspis cordyla Thailand Stomach 29 1.60 Azad et al. [187]
Exocoetidae Flying fish Cheilopogon pitcairnensis South Pacific GI tract 21 0.10 Markic et al. [249]
Lethrinidae Emporer Lethrinus obsoletus South Pacific GI tract 30 0.17 Markic et al. [249]
Lutjanidae Snapper Lipocheilus carnolabrum Red Sea GI tract 7 0.29 Baalkhuyur et al. [188]
Lutjanus analis Brazil GI tract 3 0.33 Pegado et al. [263]
Lutjanus kasmira Red Sea GI tract 12 0.17 Baalkhuyur et al. [188]
Sciaenidae Drum Ctenosciaena gracilicirrhus Brazil GI tract 11 0 Pegado et al. [263]
Weakfish Macrodon ancylodon Brazil GI tract 13 0.15 Pegado et al. [263]
Scombridae Mackerel Scomber colias Canary Islands GI tract 120 2.17 Herrera et al. [230]
Scorpaeniformes Sculpin Myoxocephalus scorpius UK GI tract 5 0 McGoran et al. [251]
Sparidae Porgy Pagrus pagrus Turkey GI tract 9 1.44 Guven et al. [226]
Terapontidae Terapon Terapon jarbua China GI tract 18 2.00 Jabeen et al. [231]
Elasmobranchii Sphyrnidae Bonnethead Shark Sphyrna tiburo Brazil GI tract 2 9.00 Pegado et al. [263]
4 Actinopterygii Achiridae Sole Achirus achirus Brazil GI tract 3 0 Vendel et al. [283]
Ariidae Sea Catfish Bagre bagre Brazil GI tract 7 9.14 Pegado et al. [263]
Notarius grandicassis Brazil GI tract 4 0 Pegado et al. [263]
Carangidae Trevally Caranx papuensis South Pacific GI tract 32 1.03 Markic et al. [249]
Centrolophidae Rudderfish Psenopsis anomala China GI tract 18 1.10 Jabeen et al. [231]
China GI tract 10 0.20 Sun et al. [278]
Clupeidae Shad Alosa fallax Portugal Stomach 1 1.00 Neves et al. [259]
French
Exocoetidae Flying fish Cheilopogon simus GI tract 34 0.24 Garnier et al. [221]
Polynesia
Gadidae Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus North Sea GI tract 97 0.08 Foekema et al. [220]
Haemulidae Grunt Plectorhinchus gaterinus Red Sea GI tract 6 0.33 Baalkhuyur et al. [188]
Lethrinidae Emporer Lethrinus amboinensis South Pacific GI tract 26 0.38 Markic et al. [249]
Ophichthidae Eel Ophichthus cylindroideus Brazil GI tract 1 0 Pegado et al. [263]
24
Pleuronectidae Halibut Hippoglossus hippoglossus Scotland GI tract 14 0 Murphy et al. [254]
Priacanthidae Bigeye Priacanthus arenatus Brazil GI tract 122 1.72 Cardozo et al. [200]
Rachycentridae Cobia Rachycentron canadum Brazil GI tract 1 0 Pegado et al. [263]
Sciaenidae Croaker Micropogonias undulatus Gulf of Mexico Stomach 383 0.87 Peters et al. [266]
Weakfish Cynoscion microlepidotus Brazil GI tract 16 0.25 Pegado et al. [263]
Cynoscion virescens Brazil GI tract 7 0.43 Pegado et al. [263]
Scophthalmidae Flatfish Phrynorhombus norvegicus UK GI tract 1 0 McGoran et al. [251]
Serranidae Grouper Epinephelus chlorostigma Red Sea GI tract 3 0.33 Baalkhuyur et al. [188]
Epinephelus epistictus Red Sea GI tract 5 0.20 Baalkhuyur et al. [188]
Epinephelus radiatus Red Sea GI tract 7 0.14 Baalkhuyur et al. [188]
Stomiidae Dragonfish Stomias boa boa Atlantic Ocean GI tract 5 0.80 Lusher et al. [246]
Snaggletooth Astronesthes indopacificus Pacific Ocean Stomach 7 1.00 Boerger et al. [194]
Triglidae Gurnard Chelidonichthys lucerna Mediterranean GI tract 3 1.00 Avio et al. [184]
4.1 Actinopterygii Aploactinidae Velvetfish Erisphex pottii China GI tract 120 0.32 Sun et al. [278]
Bramidae Pomfret Brama brama Portugal Stomach 3 0.67 Neves et al. [259]
Carangidae Jack Caranx crysos Turkey GI tract 1 5.00 Guven et al. [226]
Carangidae Queenfish Scomberoides tol Thailand Stomach 3 2.20 Azad et al. [187]
Gadidae Cod Gadus morhua North Sea GI tract 80 0.14 Foekema et al. [220]
North Sea GI tract 81 0.01 Rummel et al. [273]
Whiting Micromesistius poutassou Scotland GI tract 20 0 Murphy et al. [254]
Lophiidae Goosefish Lophius litulon China GI tract 20 0.25 Sun et al. [278]
Lutjanidae Snapper Lutjanus gibbus South Pacific GI tract 29 0.41 Markic et al. [249]
Muraenidae Eel Gymnothorax ocellatus Brazil GI tract 1 0 Pegado et al. [263]
Hippoglossoides
Pleuronectidae Flounder UK GI tract 104 2.67 McGoran et al. [251]
platessoides
Sciaenidae Weakfish Cynoscion acoupa Brazil GI tract 552 1.91 Ferreira et al. [219]
Serranidae Grouper Epinephelus itajara Brazil GI tract 2 0 Pegado et al. [263]
Sparidae Porgy Dentex gibbosus Turkey GI tract 14 0.29 Guven et al. [226]
Trichiuridae Hairtail Eupleurogrammus muticus China GI tract 15 0.33 Sun et al. [278]
4.2 Actinopterygii Carangidae Jack Caranx latus Brazil GI tract 57 0 Vendel et al. [283]
Seriola lalandi South Pacific GI tract 15 0.27 Markic et al. [249]
25
Centrolophidae Warehou Schedophilus velaini South Pacific GI tract 14 1.43 Markic et al. [249]
Centropomidae Snook Centropomus ensiferus Brazil GI tract 1 0 Vendel et al. [283]
Centropomus undecimalis Brazil GI tract 2 0 Vendel et al. [283]
Gadidae Cod Gadus macrocephalus China GI tract 40 0.43 Sun et al. [278]
Lutjanidae Snapper Pristipomoides typus Red Sea GI tract 5 0 Baalkhuyur et al. [188]
Sciaenidae Weakfish Cynoscion arenarius Gulf of Mexico Stomach 139 0.79 Peters et al. [266]
Synodontidae Lizardfish Harpadon nehereus China GI tract 18 3.80 Jabeen et al. [231]
Elasmobranchii Pentanchidae CatShark Galeus melastomus Mediterranean Stomach 21 0.34 Alomar and Deudero [181]
Leatherback Sea
4.24 Reptilia Cheloniidae Dermochelys coriacea Atlantic GI tract 2 1.5 Duncan et al. [294]
Turtle
4.25 Actinopterygii Serranidae Trout Plectropomus spp.* Australia GI tract 20 5.80 Kroon et al. [238]
4.27 Mammalia Balaenopteridae Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangliae Netherlands GI tract 1 16.00 Besseling et al. [191]
4.3 Actinopterygii Ariidae SeaCatfish Cathorops agassizii Brazil GI tract 1 0 Vendel et al. [283]
Carangidae Leatherjacket Oligoplites palometa Brazil GI tract 8 0 Vendel et al. [283]
Oligoplites saurus Brazil GI tract 22 0.05 Vendel et al. [283]
Moonfish Selene vomer Brazil GI tract 2 1.00 Pegado et al. [263]
Moonfish Selene vomer Brazil GI tract 2 0 Vendel et al. [283]
Gadidae Pollack Pollachius pollachius Scotland GI tract 5 0 Murphy et al. [254]
Liparidae Snailfish Liparis tanakae China GI tract 245 0.36 Sun et al. [278]
Phycidae Forkbeard Phycis phycis Italy GI tract 7 3.38 Avio et al. [295]
Sciaenidae Croaker Argyrosomus regius Portugal Stomach 5 0.80 Neves et al. [259]
Scombridae Mackerel Scomberomorus guttatus Thailand Stomach 5 0.60 Azad et al. [187]
Tuna Thunnus alalunga Mediterranean Stomach 31 0.13 Romeo et al. [272]
Scophthalmidae Megrim Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis Scotland GI tract 10 0.10 Murphy et al. [254]
4.36 Mammalia Delphinidae Risso's dolphin Grampus griseus UK GI tract 1 9.00 Nelms et al. [296]
White-beaked
4.37 Mammalia Delphinidae
dolphin
Lagenorhynchus albirostris UK GI tract 1 3.00 Nelms et al. [296]
4.4 Actinopterygii Coryphaenidae Dolphinfish Coryphaena hippurus South Pacific GI tract 10 0.40 Markic et al. [249]
Gadidae Whiting Merlangius merlangus North Sea GI tract 105 0.10 Foekema et al. [220]
Lotidae Ling Molva molva Scotland GI tract 5 0 Murphy et al. [254]
Lutjanidae Snapper Lutjanus jocu Brazil GI tract 4 0 Vendel et al. [283]
Merlucciidae Hake Merluccius merluccius Mediterranean GI tract 3 1.33 Avio et al. [184]
26
Mediterranean GI tract 97 0.38 Giani et al. [222]
Mediterranean Stomach 67 0.46 Mancuso et al. [248]
Muraenesocidae Pike Cogner Muraenesox cinereus China GI tract 18 2.40 Jabeen et al. [231]
Salmonidae Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Canada GI tract 74 1.15 Collicutt et al. [210]
Scombridae Tuna Katsuwonus pelamis South Pacific GI tract 26 0.35 Markic et al. [249]
Thunnus albacares South Pacific GI tract 68 0.68 Markic et al. [249]
Sparidae Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides Gulf of Mexico Stomach 449 0.96 Peters et al. [266]
Sphyrnidae Barracudina Sphyraena forsteri South Pacific GI tract 12 0.25 Markic et al. [249]
Synodontidae Lizardfish Saurida tumbil Persian Gulf WO 4 13.50 Abbasi et al. [180]
Trichiuridae Hairtail Trichiurus lepturus Brazil GI tract 5 0.40 Pegado et al. [263]
Uranoscopidae Stargazer Uranoscopus scaber Italy GI tract 7 3.20 Avio et al. [185]
Chondrichthyes Squalidae Dogfish Squalus acanthias Mediterranean GI tract 9 1.25 Avio et al. [184]
Elasmobranchii Carcharhinidae Shark Prionace glauca Mediterranean Stomach 139 0.20 Bernardini et al. [190]
Mammalia Phocoenidae Finless porpoise Neophocaena phocaenoides China GI tract 7 19.14 Xiong et al. [290]
4.44 Mammalia Kogiidae Pygmy sperm whale Kogia breviceps UK GI tract 1 4.00 Nelms et al. [296]
4.47 Mammalia Delphinidae Striped dolphin Stenella coeruleoalba UK GI tract 1 7.00 Nelms et al. [296]
4.48 Mammalia Phocoenidae Harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena UK GI tract 21 5.24 Nelms et al. [296]
4.49 Mammalia Phocidae Grey seal Halichoerus grypus UK Scat 31 0.84 Nelms et al. [257]
4.5 Actinopterygii Belonidae Needlefish Strongylura timucu Brazil GI tract 2 0 Vendel et al. [283]
Carangidae Queenfish Scomberoides tala Thailand Stomach 3 0.70 Azad et al. [187]
Clupeidae Herring Opisthonema oglinum Brazil GI tract 56 0.23 Vendel et al. [283]
Ephippidae Spadefish Chaetodipterus faber Brazil GI tract 6 0.17 Vendel et al. [283]
Gulf of Mexico Stomach 103 1.38 Peters et al. [266]
Lophiidae Anglerfish Lophius piscatorius Portugal Stomach 2 0.50 Neves et al. [259]
Ophichthidae Eel Ophichthus ophis Brazil GI tract 1 0 Pegado et al. [263]
Pomatomidae Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix Brazil GI tract 2 0 Pegado et al. [263]
Scombridae Mackerel Scomberomorus commerson Thailand Stomach 4 4.30 Azad et al. [187]
Tuna Thunnus thynnus Mediterranean Stomach 36 0.44 Romeo et al. [272]
Serranidae Hind Cephalopholis argus Red Sea GI tract 4 0 Baalkhuyur et al. [188]
Stromateidae Butterfish Peprilus paru Brazil GI tract 2 0 Pegado et al. [263]
Synodontidae Lizardfish Saurida undosquamis Turkey GI tract 99 1.22 Guven et al. [226]
27
Trichiuridae Scabbardfish Aphanopus carbo Scotland GI tract 5 0 Murphy et al. [254]
Xiphiidae Swordfish Xiphias gladius Mediterranean Stomach 56 0.16 Romeo et al. [272]
Zeidae John Dory Zeus faber Portugal Stomach 1 1.00 Neves et al. [259]
Atlantic white-sided
Mammalia Delphinidae Lagenorhynchus acutus UK GI tract 1 8.00 Nelms et al. [296]
dolphin
Bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus UK GI tract 1 6.00 Nelms et al. [296]
Hernandez-Gonzalez et al.
Common Dolphin Delphinus delphis Spain Stomach 35 11.74
[229]
Humpback Dolphin Sousa chinensis China GI tract 3 25.67 Zhu et al. [293]
Otariidae Fur seal Arctocephalus australis Chile Scat 51 24.86 Perez-Venegas et al. [265]
Callorhinus ursinus USA Scat 44 13.27 Donohue et al. [217]
Phocidae Harbour seal Phoca vitulina UK GI tract 4 4.25 Nelms et al. [296]
Ziphiidae Beaked whale Mesoplodon mirus Ireland GI tract 3 29.33 Lusher et al. [245]
Data has been grouped into trophic levels based on the well-established FishBase [297] and SeaLifeBase [298] databases and organised by class and family,
with sample sizes (n) given.
WO: Whole organism
a
Wild caught bivalves only.
* Plectropomus spp. refers to P. leopardus (trophic level = 4.4) and P. maculatus (trophic level = 4.11) examined by Kroon et al. [238]. Trophic level given is
an average of the two species (trophic level = 4.25).
(b) Calculations for standardisation of MP contamination data

Calculated
Average Soft Tissue
Trophic Common Abundance
Class Family Species Reported Weight Reference
Level Name (MPs
(MPs g-1) (g individual-1)
individual-1)
2 Bivalvia Arcidae Clam Scapharca subcrenata 10.50 4.43 46.52 Li et al. [240]
Tegillarca granosa 4.00 1.29 5.16 Li et al. [240]
Mytilidae Mussel Mytilus edulis 2.20 1.79 3.94 Li et al. [241]
0.13 5.74 0.73 Vandermeersch et al. [282]
Ostreidae Oyster Alectryonella plicatula 5.50 1.84 10.12 Li et al. [240]
Crassostrea gigas 0.08 2.25 0.18 Bonello et al. [195]
Pectinidae Scallop Mizuhopecten yessoensis 2.30 24.80 57.04 Li et al. [240]
Pharidae Clam Sinonovacula constricta 2.00 7.53 15.06 Li et al. [240]
28
Veneridae Clam Cyclina sinensis 4.00 1.19 4.76 Li et al. [240]
Meretrix lusoria 4.20 2.33 9.79 Li et al. [240]
Ruditapes philippinarum 0.90 10.00 9.00 Davidson and Dudas [212]
2.50 2.21 5.53 Li et al. [240]
2.69 Bivalvia Mytilidae Mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis 2.50 1.79 4.48 Li et al. [240]
0.15 5.15 0.76 Vandermeersch et al. [282]
Data presented here is included in S3 Table (above).
29
S4 Table. Bioaccumulation of chemical additives associated with microplastic (MP) uptake for marine organisms collected in situ. Chemical additive
concentrations per individual (ng g-1; i.e. body burden) were based on reported and quantified concentrations of additives in the tissues of each species, with
concentrations representative of additives per number of total organisms in the sample size for a particular species, rather than taken from only the number of
organisms that exhibited additive contamination.
Concentration
Trophic Common Area MP Chemical
Class Family Species Name Location n Reported Reference
Level Name Investigated Individual-1 Additives
(ng g-1)
Hermabessiere et al.
2 Bivalvia Cardiidae Clam Cerastoderma edule France Soft tissue 50 5.72 PAH 0.06
[228]
PBDE 0.70
[228]
PCB 0
[228]
Phthalates 52.36
[228]
Mytilidae Mussel Mytilus edulis France Soft tissue 50 5.88 PAH 5.48
[228]
PBDE 0.07
[228]
PCB 1
[228]
Phthalates 26.36
[228]
Microcosmus
2.2 Ascidiacea Pyuridae Ascidian Israel Soft tissue 15 1.78 DBP 1,643 – 2,224 Vered et al. [284]
exasperatus
DEHP 4,851 – 4,988 Vered et al. [284]
DnOP 0 Vered et al. [284]
Sampling locations and sizes (n) have been included. Data has been grouped into trophic levels based on the well-established SeaLifeBase database [298]. See
above for abbreviations related to chemical additives used.
30
S5 Table. Experimental details of microplastic (MP) laboratory exposures conducted with marine organisms. Contamination and retention, following
specific exposures to MPs under controlled laboratory conditions, are presented for each species, and organised by trophic levels.
Exposure Details
Ingestion Egestion
Size Conc. Depuration MPs
Class Species n Polymer Colour Shape Time Dose Area Sampling Sampling Retention Reference
(µm) (MPs ml-1) Period Ind-1
Frequency Frequency
23 x Porter et al.
2 Bivalvia Mytilus edulis 16 PP NM Fi 1h Once 0.1 1 - ST - - 0.5 -
3000 [269]
23 x Porter et al.
16 PP NM Fi 1h Once 0.1 2 - ST - - 6.5 -
3000 [269]
Porter et al.
9 PS 7 - 30 NM S 1h Once 50 3 - ST - - 340 -
[269]
Porter et al.
9 PS 7 - 30 NM S 1h Once 50 2 - ST - - 105,000 -
[269]
Porter et al.
9 PE 9 - 11 NM S 1h Once 50 2 - ST - - 130,000 -
[269]
Porter et al.
9 PS 7 - 30 NM S 1h Once 50 1 - ST - - 150,000 -
[269]
Porter et al.
9 PE 9 - 11 NM S 1h Once 50 1 - ST - - 200,000 -
[269]
100 - Qu et al.
5 Mix Black Fi 5d Daily 100 - ST Daily - 5.25 -
3500 [271]
Qu et al.
5 Mix 100 Black Fi 5d Daily 1,000 - ST Daily - 11.2 -
[271]
Qu et al.
5 PVC 20 - 500 Pink Fr 5d Daily 100 - ST Daily - 1.5 -
[271]
Qu et al.
5 PVC 20 - 500 Pink Fr 5d Daily 1,000 - ST Daily - 3 -
[271]
Qu et al.
5 PS 10 Green S 5d Daily 100 - ST Daily - 2.8 -
[271]
Qu et al.
5 PS 10 Green S 5d Daily 1,000 - ST Daily - 12 -
[271]
Evadne 7- Setala et al.
Branchipoda PS 10 Flu S 3h Once 2,000 - GI - - 0 -
nordmanni 10 [299]
Tripneustes Green 30 min Kaposi et
Echinoidea 25 PE 10 - 45 S 5d Once 300 420 h STO Daily 1.8 <2d
gratilla (Flu) intervals al. [234]
Brachionus Jeong et al.
Eurotatoria 50 PS 0.05 - 6 Flu S 24 h Once 0.00001 a - GI - - 0 -
koreanus [232]
Acartia Vroom et
Hexanauplia 9 PS 30 Flu Fr 24 h Once 0.028 - GI - - 0 -
longiremis al. [285]
Calanus Yellow Cole et al.
50 PS 20 S 24 h Once 75 - Tank - - 3,278 -
helgolandicus (Flu) [207]
Procter et
50 PA 10 x 30 NM Fi 6h Once 80 - Tank - - 104,100 -
al. [270]
Allorchestes 0, 12, 24, Chua et al.
Malacostraca 15 PE 11 - 700 NM Fr 72 h Once 0.1 a 36 h WO - 18.8 < 0.5 MPs
compressa 36 h [206]
ind-1 at 36 h
N Xu et al.
2.2 Bivalvia Atactodea striata PS 63 - 250 NM S 10 d Daily 1 7d Faeces - - 3.5 NM
M [291]
31
Bour et al.
Ennucula tenuis 6 PE 125 - 500 NM Fr 4w Once 1 – 25 c - ST - - 0.83 -
[196]
Limecola Setala et al.
54 PS 10 Flu S 24 h Once 5 - 250 - GI - - 8.1 -
balthica [274]
Setala et al.
Mytilus trossulus 54 PS 10 Flu S 24 h Once 5 - 250 - GI - - 27.3 -
[274]
Idotea Blue Hamer et
2.5 Malacostraca 24 PS < 100 Fr 72 h Once 0.02 – 0.35 b - GI - - 41.67 -
emarginata (Flu) al. [227]
Green Hamer et
24 PS 10 S 72 h Once 0.012 – 0.12 b - GI - - 20.8 -
(Flu) al. [227]
Mytilus 12 h Capolupo
2.69 Bivalvia 150 PS 3 Flu S 24 h Once 10,000 8d GI - 14.2 8 h to 8 d
galloprovincialis intervals et al. [199]
Critchell
Acanthochromis 2x and
2.7 Actinopterygii 112 PET 1-2 NM S 7d 0.05 - 0.13 d - GI - - 2,102* >6w
polyacanthus Daily Hoogenbo
om [211]
Gray and
Palaemonetes 0, 24, 48,
2.71 Malacostraca 20 PP 93 White Fi 3h Once 50 96 h GI - 2.3 NM Weinstein
pugio 72, 96 h
[225]
Gray and
0, 24, 48,
20 PP 34 White Fi 3h Once 50 96 h GI - 10 NM Weinstein
72, 96 h
[225]
Gray and
0, 24, 48,
20 PP 93 White Fr 3h Once 50 96 h GI - 22 NM Weinstein
72, 96 h
[225]
Gray and
0, 24, 48,
20 PP 34 White Fr 3h Once 50 96 h GI - 23 NM Weinstein
72, 96 h
[225]
Gray and
0, 24, 48, 27.6 ± 8.57
20 PE 116 Flu S 3h Once 50 96 h GI - 3 Weinstein
72, 96 h h
[225]
Gray and
0, 24, 48,
20 PE 35 Flu S 3h Once 50 96 h GI - 3.5 NM Weinstein
72, 96 h
[225]
Gray and
0, 24, 48,
20 PE 165 Flu S 3h Once 50 96 h GI - 5 NM Weinstein
72, 96 h
[225]
Gray and
0, 24, 48,
20 PE 83 Flu S 3h Once 50 96 h GI - 7.5 NM Weinstein
72, 96 h
[225]
Gray and
0, 24, 48,
20 PE 59 Flu S 3h Once 50 96 h GI - 8 NM Weinstein
72, 96 h
[225]
Gray and
0, 24, 48, 60.6 ± 28.5
20 PS 30 Opaque S 3h Once 50 96 h GI - 10 Weinstein
72, 96 h h
[225]
Gray and
0, 24, 48, 75.9 ± 13.3
20 PS 45 Opaque S 3h Once 50 96 h GI - 28.8 Weinstein
72, 96 h h
[225]
Bour et al.
2.8 Bivalvia Abra nitida 2 PE 125 - 500 NM Fr 4w Once 1 – 15 c - ST - - 1.5 -
[196]
Brennecke
2.87 Malacostraca Minuca rapax 7 PS 180 - 250 NM Fr 2 mths Once 1,000 c - STO - - 0.14 -
et al. [198]
32
c Brennecke
27 PS 180 - 250 NM Fr 2 mths Once 108 - STO - - 0.37 -
et al. [198]
Arenicola 400 - GI, Besseling
3 Polychaeta 80 PS Clear Cr 28 d Once 0.001 – 0.1 a - - - 1.36 -
marina 1300 Faeces et al. [192]
Dicentrarchus Mazurais
3.5 Actinopterygii 120 PE 10 - 45 Flu S 36 d Daily 1.2 e 2d WO 14, 20, 34 d - 1.4 <2d
labrax et al. [250]
e Mazurais
120 PE 10 - 45 Flu S 36 d Daily 1.2 2d WO 14, 20, 34 d - 3.3 <2d
et al. [250]
Seriolella Ory et al.
33 PA 1200 Clear Fr 5 min Once 6.7·10-5 10 w Video - Daily 0.5 4.4 ± 0.9 d
violacea [261]
Ory et al.
33 PA 1200 Yellow Fr 5 min Once 6.7·10-5 10 w Video - Daily 0.6 4.4 ± 0.9 d
[261]
Ory et al.
33 PA 1200 Blue Fr 5 min Once 6.7·10-5 10 w Video - Daily 0.8 4.4 ± 0.9 d
[261]
Ory et al.
33 PA 1200 Black Fr 5 min Once 6.7·10-5 10 w Video - Daily 1.1 4.4 ± 0.9 d
[261]
Jovanovic
3.7 Actinopterygii Sparus aurata 15 PVC 75.6 Opaque Fr 45 d Daily 3,330 c 30 d INT - 0, 30 d 0.07 > 30 d
et al. [233]
Jovanovic
15 PVC 75.6 Opaque Fr 45 d Daily 3,330 c 30 d STO - - 0 -
et al. [233]
Jovanovic
15 HDPE 23.4 Opaque Fr 45 d Daily 3,330 c 30 d INT - 0, 30 d 1.67 > 30 d
et al. [233]
Jovanovic
15 HDPE 23.4 Opaque Fr 45 d Daily 3,330 c 30 d STO - 0, 30 d 1.8 > 30 d
et al. [233]
Jovanovic
15 PS 51 Opaque Fr 45 d Daily 3,330 c 30 d INT - 0, 30 d 1.8 > 30 d
et al. [233]
Jovanovic
15 PS 51 Opaque Fr 45 d Daily 3,330 c 30 d STO - 0, 30 d 2.07 > 30 d
et al. [233]
Jovanovic
15 PA 11.7 Opaque Fr 45 d Daily 3,330 c 30 d STO - 0, 30 d 2.13 > 30 d
et al. [233]
Jovanovic
15 MDPE 54.5 Opaque Fr 45 d Daily 3,330 c 30 d STO - 0, 30 d 2.47 > 30 d
et al. [233]
Jovanovic
15 LDPVC 87.6 Opaque Fr 45 d Daily 3,330 c 30 d STO - 0, 30 d 5.4 > 30 d
et al. [233]
Jovanovic
15 LDPVC 87.6 Opaque Fr 45 d Daily 3,330 c 30 d INT - 0, 30 d 9.27 > 30 d
et al. [233]
Jovanovic
15 MDPE 54.6 Opaque Fr 45 d Daily 3,330 c 30 d INT - 0, 30 d 15.73 > 30 d
et al. [233]
Jovanovic
15 PA 11.7 Opaque Fr 45 d Daily 3,330 c 30 d INT - 0, 30 d 34.27 > 30 d
et al. [233]
Sample sizes (n) have been included for convenience. MP shapes are reported as spheres (S), fibres (Fi), crystals (Cr), and fragments (Fr). Immediate ingestion
(sampling at end of exposure duration) is reported in MP individual-1. Exposure and retention times are reported in minutes (min), hours (h), days (d), weeks
(w), or months (mths). ‘Mix’ is representative of PES, PA and PP. Trophic levels have been verified using the well-established FishBase and SeaLifeBase
databases. Values varying for Porter et al. [269] result from dosing either 1alongside marine snow, 2incorporated in marine snow, or 3alone. A dash (-) indicates
that this information was not a component of the study; when it was but not reported, NM is used.
WO: Whole organism; NM: Not Mentioned; Flu: Fluorescent; ST: soft tissue; STO: stomach; INT: intestine; GI: gastrointestinal tract
a
g ml-1; bMPs g weight-1; cmg kg-1; dmg l-1; emg
*Values are the upper limit of ingestion rates reported. Full ingestion details for each treatment [211] or timeframe [174] were not reported.
33
S6 Table. Trophic transfer of microplastics (MPs) for marine organisms. Information on bioaccumulation and retention, following specific exposures to
MPs under controlled laboratory conditions, are presented for each species and across two different trophic levels.
Post-Feed C. maenas Ingestion

Trophic Levels Experimental Design Retention Reference
Sampling Reported
2 → 3.5 24 h 100% ingested MPs 14 days Watts et al. [289]
Farrell and Nelson

2 → 3.5 1h 1,025 ± 556 MPs ml-1 < 21 days
[218]
Sample sizes (n) have been included in the experimental design. Trophic levels have been verified using the well-established SeaLifeBase database. Mussel and
crab images acquired from: clipart-library.com
34
S7 Table. Experimental details of chemical additive laboratory exposures conducted with marine organisms. Bioaccumulation, following specific
exposures to chemical additives under controlled laboratory conditions, are presented for each species, and across trophic levels.
Exposure Details
Conc.
Common Conc. Dispersal Sampling Depuration
Class Species Name n Chemicals Duration Dose AI Reported Retention Reference
Name (ng g-1) Method Frequency Period
(ng g-1)
Magara et
2 Bivalvia Mussel Mytilus edulis 8 PAH: Fluoranthene 100 i Alone 96 h Once - DG 80,460 - -
al. [247]
Magara et
Alongside PE 96 h Once - DG 41,500 - -
al. [247]
Magara et
On PE 96 h Once - DG 2,710 - -
al. [247]
Paul-Pont
Mytilus spp. 24 PAH: Fluoranthene 30 i Alone 7d Once - DG 117,100 7d NM
et al. [262]
Paul-Pont
Alongside PS 7d Once - DG 89,200 7d NM
et al. [262]
O'Donova
Scrobicularia Every
Clam 170 PAH: Benzo[a]pyrene 16870 On LDPE 14 d - T 7.3 - - n et al.
plana 72 h
[260]
Allorchestes Chua et al.
Malacostraca Amphipod 5 PBDE: PBDEs 5 ii Alongside MPs 72 h Once - WO 50 - 275 48 h NM
compressa [206]
Chua et al.
Alone 72 h Once - WO 2,000 – 2,250 48 h NM
[206]
Chua et al.
On MPs 72 h Once - WO 2 - 13 48 h NM
[206]
Chua et al.
50 ii Alongside MPs 72 h Once - WO 175 – 1,275 48 h NM
[206]
Chua et al.
Alone 72 h Once - WO 3,500 – 7,900 48 h NM
[206]
Chua et al.
On MPs 72 h Once - WO 0 - 70 48 h NM
[206]
Mytilus Pittura et
2.69 Bivalvia Mussel 180 PAH: Benzo[a]pyrene 15000 On LDPE 28 d Daily 7, 14, 28 d DG 30 - -
galloprovincialis al. [268]
Pittura et
0.15 i Alone 28 d Daily 7, 14, 28 d DG 35 - -
al. [268]
Pittura et
15000 On LDPE 28 d Daily 7, 14, 28 d Gills 12 - -
al. [268]
Pittura et
0.15 i Alone 28 d Daily 7, 14, 28 d Gills 17 - -
al. [268]
Avio et al.
150 PAH: Pyrene 200 - 260 On PE and PS 7d Daily - DG 470 - -
[186]
Nephrops Devriese
3.67 Malacostraca Lobster 7 PCB: PCBs 1350 ii On PE 3w M, W, F* - T 214 - -
norvegicus et al. [215]
Devriese
6 PCB: PCBs 1350 ii On PS 3w M, W, F* - T 154 - -
et al. [215]
Devriese
8 PCB: PCBs 1350 ii On PS (6 µm) 3w M, W, F* - T 181 - -
et al. [215]
Devriese
23 PCB: PCBs 1350 ii Alone 3w M, W, F* - T 229 – 2,940 - -
et al. [215]
Species have been organised by trophic level based on the well-established FishBase and SeaLifeBase databases. Exposure and retention times are reported in
hours (h), days (d), weeks (w), or months (mths). Areas investigated (AI) for chemical additive contamination include digestive glands (DG), tissues (T) and
35
whole organisms (WO). Sample sizes (n) have been given as well. Concentration reported is representative of contamination at end of exposure period and
prior to the depuration period (if applicable).
NM: Not Mentioned; iµg l-1; iing; *Frequency of exposure to freshly dosed chemicals occurred on Monday, Wednesday and Friday of each week for the
duration of the 3-week exposure [215].
36
S8 Table. Number of field and laboratory studies investigating microplastic (MP) uptake in marine
organisms for each trophic level. Both total number of studies and number of studies utilising chemical
confirmation of MPs (i.e. FTIR, Raman, polarised light microscopy) are presented for each trophic level
from in situ studies. Laboratory exposure studies are also reported. This information was used when creating
Fig 4 and 5 in the main manuscript. Please note these numbers will equate to a value larger than the reported
number of studies included in this study due to studies investigating a multitude of trophic levels.
PERCENT OF IN SITU STUDIES

TROPHIC NUMBER OF IN NUMBER OF LAB
WITH CHEMICAL
LEVEL SITU STUDIES EXPOSURE STUDIES
CONFIRMATION (N)
1 1 0% (0) 0
2 26 62% (16) 12
2.1 2 50% (1) 0
2.2 3 67% (2) 0
2.3 7 57% (4) 0
2.4 2 50% (1) 0
2.5 6 83% (5) 1
2.6 5 60% (3) 1
2.7 4 50% (2) 2
2.8 5 60% (3) 2
2.9 4 25% (1) 0
3 8 50% (4) 1
3.1 23 65% (15) 0
3.2 12 75% (9) 0
3.3 19 74% (14) 0
3.4 16 75% (12) 0
3.5 18 56% (10) 2
3.6 16 81% (13) 0
3.7 16 75% (12) 1
3.8 10 70% (7) 0
3.9 8 75% (6) 0
4 17 65% (11) 0
4.1 12 83% (10) 0
4.2 11 73% (8) 0
4.3 11 73% (8) 0
4.4 24 71% (17) 0
4.5 17 59% (10) 0
37
Figures
S1 Fig. Flow diagram outlining the standardisation of microplastic (MP) contamination data for marine organisms. Data on MPs were standardised to
number of MPs per individual organism (MPs individual-1; i.e. body burden).
38
References
1. Akhbarizadeh R, Moore F, Keshavarzi B. Investigating a probable relationship between microplastics

and potentially toxic elements in fish muscles from northeast of Persian Gulf. Environ Pollut.
2018;232:154-63.
2. Allen AS, Seymour AC, Rittschof D. Chemoreception drives plastic consumption in a hard coral. Mar
Pollut Bull. 2017;124(1):198-205.
3. Asmonaite G, Larsson K, Undeland I, Sturve J, Almroth BC. Size matters: Ingestion of relatively large
microplastics contaminated with environmental pollutants posed little risk for fish health and fillet
quality. Environ Sci Technol. 2018;52(24):14381-91.
4. Barboza LGA, Vieira LR, Branco V, Carvalho C, Guilherminol L. Microplastics increase mercury
bioconcentration in gills and bioaccumulation in the liver, and cause oxidative stress and damage in
Dicentrarchus labrax juveniles. Sci Rep. 2018;8:9.
5. Barboza LGA, Vieira LR, Branco V, Figueiredo N, Carvalho F, Carvalho C, et al. Microplastics cause
neurotoxicity, oxidative damage and energy-related changes and interact with the bioaccumulation of
mercury in the European seabass, Dicentrarchus labrax (Linnaeus, 1758). Aquat Toxicol.
2018;195:49-57.
6. Barboza LGA, Vieira LR, Guilhermino L. Single and combined effects of microplastics and mercury on
juveniles of the European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax): Changes in behavioural responses and
reduction of swimming velocity and resistance time. Environ Pollut. 2018;236:1014-9.
7. Beiras R, Tato T. Microplastics do not increase toxicity of a hydrophobic organic chemical to marine
plankton. Mar Pollut Bull. 2019;138:58-62.
8. Beiras R, Bellas J, Cachot J, Cormier B, Cousin X, Engwall M, et al. Ingestion and contact with
polyethylene microplastics does not cause acute toxicity on marine zooplankton. J Hazard Mater.
2018;360:452-60.
9. Bessa F, Barria P, Neto JM, Frias J, Otero V, Sobral P, et al. Occurrence of microplastics in commercial
fish from a natural estuarine environment. Mar Pollut Bull. 2018;128:575-84.
10. Besseling E, Foekema EM, van den Heuvel-Greve MJ, Koelmans AA. The effect of microplastic on the
uptake of chemicals by the lugworm Arenicola marina (L.) under environmentally relevant exposure
conditions. Environ Sci Technol. 2017;51(15):8795-804.
11. Bjorndal KA, Bolten AB, Lagueux CJ. Ingestion of marine debris by juvenile sea turtles in coastal
Florida habitats. Mar Pollut Bull. 1994;28(3):154-8.
12. Bordbar L, Kapiris K, Kalogirou S, Anastasopoulou A. First evidence of ingested plastics by a high
commercial shrimp species (Plesionika narval) in the eastern Mediterranean. Mar Pollut Bull.
2018;136:472-6.
13. Bour A, Avio CG, Gorbi S, Regoli F, Hylland K. Presence of microplastics in benthic and epibenthic
organisms: Influence of habitat, feeding mode and trophic level. Environ Pollut. 2018;243:1217-25.
14. Boyle M, Limpus C. The stomach contents of post-hatchling green and loggerhead sea turtles in the
southwest Pacific: an insight into habitat association. Mar Biol. 2008;155(2):233-41.
15. Brate ILN, Eidsvoll DP, Steindal CC, Thomas KV. Plastic ingestion by Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua)
from the Norwegian coast. Mar Pollut Bull. 2016;112(1-2):105-10.
16. Browne MA, Dissanayake A, Galloway TS, Lowe DM, Thompson RC. Ingested microscopic plastic
translocates to the circulatory system of the mussel, Mytilus edulis (L.). Environ Sci Technol.
2008;42(13):5026-31.
17. Budimir S, Setala O, Lehtiniemi M. Effective and easy to use extraction method shows low numbers of
microplastics in offshore planktivorous fish from the northern Baltic Sea. Mar Pollut Bull.
2018;127:586-92.
18. Bussolaro D, Wright SL, Schnell S, Schirmer K, Bury NR, Arlt VM. Co-exposure to polystyrene plastic
beads and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon contaminants in fish gill (RTgill-W1) and intestinal
(RTgutGC) epithelial cells derived from rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Environ Pollut.
2019;248:706-14.
19. Cannon SME, Lavers JL, Figueiredo B. Plastic ingestion by fish in the Southern Hemisphere: A
baseline study and review of methods. Mar Pollut Bull. 2016;107(1):286-91.
39
20. Carreras-Colom E, Constenla M, Soler-Membrives A, Cartes JE, Baeza M, Padros F, et al. Spatial
occurrence and effects of microplastic ingestion on the deep-water shrimp Aristeus antennatus. Mar
Pollut Bull. 2018;133:44-52.
21. Caruso G, Peda C, Cappello S, Leonardi M, La Ferla R, Lo Giudice A, et al. Effects of microplastics on
trophic parameters, abundance and metabolic activities of seawater and fish gut bacteria in
mesocosm conditions. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2018;25(30):30067-83.
22. Chagnon C, Thiel M, Antunes J, Ferreira JL, Sobral P, Ory NC. Plastic ingestion and trophic transfer
between Easter Island flying fish (Cheilopogon rapanouiensis) and yellowfin tuna (Thunnus
albacares) from Rapa Nui (Easter Island). Environ Pollut. 2018;243:127-33.
23. Chapron L, Peru E, Engler A, Ghiglione JF, Meistertzheim AL, Pruski AM, et al. Macro- and
microplastics affect cold-water corals growth, feeding and behaviour. Sci Rep. 2018;8:8.
24. Cole M, Galloway TS. Ingestion of nanoplastics and microplastics by Pacific oyster larvae. Environ Sci
Technol. 2015;49(24):14625-32.
25. Cole M, Lindeque PK, Fileman E, Clark J, Lewis C, Halsband C, et al. Microplastics alter the properties
and sinking rates of zooplankton faecal pellets. Environ Sci Technol. 2016;50(6):3239-46.
26. Compa M, Ventero A, Iglesias M, Deudero S. Ingestion of microplastics and natural fibres in Sardina
pilchardus (Walbaum, 1792) and Engraulis encrasicolus (Linnaeus, 1758) along the Spanish
Mediterranean coast. Mar Pollut Bull. 2018;128:89-96.
27. Courtene-Jones W, Quinn B, Gary SF, Mogg AOM, Narayanaswamy BE. Microplastic pollution
identified in deep-sea water and ingested by benthic invertebrates in the Rockall Trough, North
Atlantic Ocean. Environ Pollut. 2017;231:271-80.
28. Courtene-Jones W, Quinn B, Murphy F, Gary SF, Narayanaswamy BE. Optimisation of enzymatic
digestion and validation of specimen preservation methods for the analysis of ingested microplastics.
Anal Methods. 2017;9(9):1437-45.
29. Courtene-Jones W, Quinn B, Ewins C, Gary SF, Narayanaswamy BE. Consistent microplastic ingestion
by deep-sea invertebrates over the last four decades (1976-2015), a study from the North East
Atlantic. Environ Pollut. 2019;244:503-12.
30. Cunha C, Faria M, Nogueira N, Ferreira A, Cordeiro N. Marine vs freshwater microalgae exopolymers
as biosolutions to microplastics pollution. Environ Pollut. 2019;249:372-80.
31. Dantas DV, Ribeiro CIR, Frischknecht CDA, Machado R, Farias EGG. Ingestion of plastic fragments
by the Guri sea catfish Genidens genidens (Cuvier, 1829) in a subtropical coastal estuarine system.
Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2019;26(8):8344-51.
32. Davarpanah E, Guilhermino L. Single and combined effects of microplastics and copper on the
population growth of the marine microalgae Tetraselmis chuii. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci.
2015;167:269-75.
33. Davison P, Asch RG. Plastic ingestion by mesopelagic fishes in the north pacific subtropical gyre.
Marine Ecology Progress Series. 2011;432:173-80.
34. Dawson AL, Kawaguchi S, King CK, Townsend KA, King R, Huston WM, et al. Turning microplastics
into nanoplastics through digestive fragmentation by Antarctic krill. Nat Commun. 2018;9:8.
35. Dawson A, Huston W, Kawaguchi S, King C, Cropp R, Wild S, et al. Uptake and depuration kinetics
influence microplastic bioaccumulation and toxicity in Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba). Environ
Sci Technol. 2018;52(5):3195-201.
36. de Orte MR, Clowez S, Caldeira K. Response of bleached and symbiotic sea anemones to plastic
microfiber exposure. Environ Pollut. 2019;249:512-7.
37. de Sa LC, Luis LG, 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. 2015;196:359-62.
38. Detree C, Gallardo-Escarate C. Single and repetitive microplastics exposures induce immune system
modulation and homeostasis alteration in the edible mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis. Fish Shellfish
Immunol. 2018;83:52-60.
39. Ding JF, Li JX, Sun CJ, He CF, Jiang FH, Gao FL, et al. Separation and identification of microplastics
in digestive system of bivalves. Chin J Anal Chem. 2018;46(5):690-7.
40. Ding JF, Li JX, Sun CJ, Jiang FH, Ju P, Qu LY, et al. Detection of microplastics in local marine
organisms using a multi-technology system. Anal Methods. 2019;11(1):78-87.
40
41. Duncan EM, Arrowsmith J, Bain C, Broderick AC, Lee J, Metcalfe K, et al. The true depth of the
Mediterranean plastic problem: Extreme microplastic pollution on marine turtle nesting beaches in
Cyprus. Mar Pollut Bull. 2018;136:334-40.
42. Egbeocha CO, Malek S, Emenike CU, Milow P. Feasting on microplastics: Ingestion by and effects on
marine organisms. Aquat Biol. 2018;27:93-106.
43. Espinosa C, Beltran JMG, Esteban MA, Cuesta A. In vitro effects of virgin microplastics on fish head-
kidney leucocyte activities. Environ Pollut. 2018;235:30-8.
44. Fang C, Zheng RH, Zhang YS, Hong FK, Mu JL, Chen MY, et al. Microplastic contamination in
benthic organisms from the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions. Chemosphere. 2018;209:298-306.
45. Fernandez B, Albentosa M. Insights into the uptake, elimination and accumulation of microplastics in
mussel. Environ Pollut. 2019;249:321-9.
46. Ferreira GVB, Barletta M, Lima ARA, Dantas DV, Justino AKS, Costa MF. Plastic debris
contamination in the life cycle of Acoupa weakfish (Cynoscion acoupa) in a tropical estuary. ICES J
Mar Sci. 2016;73(10):2695-707.
47. Ferreira P, Fonte E, Soares ME, Carvalho F, Guilhermino L. Effects of multi-stressors on juveniles of
the marine fish Pomatoschistus microps: Gold nanoparticles, microplastics and temperature. Aquat
Toxicol. 2016;170:89-103.
48. Ferreira GVB, Barletta M, Lima ARA. Use of estuarine resources by top predator fishes. How do
ecological patterns affect rates of contamination by microplastics? Sci Total Environ. 2019;655:292-
304.
49. Floren HP, Shugart GW. Plastic in Cassin's Auklets (Ptychoramphus aleuticus) from the 2014 stranding
on the Northeast Pacific Coast. Mar Pollut Bull. 2017;117(1-2):496-8.
50. Fonte E, Ferreira P, Guilhermino L. Temperature rise and microplastics interact with the toxicity of the
antibiotic cefalexin to juveniles of the common goby (Pomatoschistus microps): Post-exposure
predatory behaviour, acetylcholinesterase activity and lipid peroxidation. Aquat Toxicol.
2016;180:173-85.
51. Fossi MC, Coppola D, Baini M, Giannetti M, Guerranti C, Marsili L, et al. Large filter feeding marine
organisms as indicators of microplastic in the pelagic environment: The case studies of the
Mediterranean basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) and fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus). Mar
Environ Res. 2014;100:17-24.
52. Fossi MC, Marsili L, Baini M, Giannetti M, Coppola D, Guerranti C, et al. Fin whales and
microplastics: The Mediterranean Sea and the Sea of Cortez scenarios. Environ Pollut. 2016;209:68-
78.
53. Fossi MC, Romeo T, Baini M, Panti C, Marsili L, Campani T, et al. Plastic debris occurrence,
convergence areas and fin whales feeding ground in the mediterranean marine protected area pelagos
sanctuary: A modeling approach. Front Mar Sci. 2017;4:15.
54. Franzellitti S, Capolupo M, Wathsala R, Valbonesi P, Fabbri E. The multixenobiotic resistance system
as a possible protective response triggered by microplastic ingestion in Mediterranean mussels
(Mytilus galloprovincialis): Larvae and adult stages. Comp Biochem Physiol C-Toxicol Pharmacol.
2019;219:50-8.
55. Galgani L, Engel A, Rossi C, Donati A, Loiselle SA. Polystyrene microplastics increase microbial
release of marine chromophoric dissolved organic matter in microcosm experiments. Sci Rep.
2018;8:11.
56. Gardon T, Reisser C, Soyez C, Quillien V, Le Moullac G. Microplastics affect energy balance and
gametogenesis in the pearl oyster Pinctada margaritifera. Environ Sci Technol. 2018;52(9):5277-86.
57. Garrido S, Linares M, Campillo JA, Albentosa M. Effect of microplastics on the toxicity of chlorpyrifos
to the microalgae Isochrysis galbana, clone t-ISO. Ecotox Environ Safe. 2019;173:103-9.
58. Gaspar TR, Chi RJ, Parrow MW, Ringwood AH. Cellular bioreactivity of micro- and nano-plastic
particles in oysters. Front Mar Sci. 2018;5:8.
59. Gassel M, Rochman CM. The complex issue of chemicals and microplastic pollution: A case study in
North Pacific lanternfish. Environ Pollut. 2019;248:1000-9.
60. Gebhardt C, Forster S. Size-selective feeding of Arenicola marina promotes long-term burial of
microplastic particles in marine sediments. Environ Pollut. 2018;242:1777-86.
41
61. Goncalves C, Martins M, Sobral P, Costa PM, Costa MH. An assessment of the ability to ingest and
excrete microplastics by filter-feeders: A case study with the Mediterranean mussel. Environ Pollut.
2019;245:600-6.
62. Granby K, Rainieri S, Rasmussen RR, Kotterman MJJ, Sloth JJ, Cederberg TL, et al. The influence of
microplastics and halogenated contaminants in feed on toxicokinetics and gene expression in
European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax). Environ Res. 2018;164:430-43.
63. Green DS. Effects of microplastics on European flat oysters, Ostrea edulis and their associated benthic
communities. Environ Pollut. 2016;216:95-103.
64. Green DS, Boots B, Sigwart J, Jiang S, Rocha C. Effects of conventional and biodegradable
microplastics on a marine ecosystem engineer (Arenicola marina) and sediment nutrient cycling.
Environ Pollut. 2016;208:426-34.
65. Green DS, Boots B, O'Connor NE, Thompson R. Microplastics affect the ecological functioning of an
important biogenic habitat. Environ Sci Technol. 2017;51(1):68-77.
66. Green DS, Colgan TJ, Thompson RC, Carolan JC. Exposure to microplastics reduces attachment
strength and alters the haemolymph proteome of blue mussels (Mytilus edulis). Environ Pollut.
2019;246:423-34.
67. Guebert-Bartholo F, Barletta M, Costa M, Monteiro-Filho E. Using gut contents to assess foraging
patterns of juvenile green turtles Chelonia mydas in the Paranaguá Estuary, Brazil. Endanger Species
Res. 2011;13(2):131-43.
68. Gutow L, Eckerlebe A, Gimenez L, Saborowski R. Experimental evaluation of seaweeds as a vector for
microplastics into marine food webs. Environ Sci Technol. 2016;50(2):915-23.
69. Gutow L, Bartl K, Saborowski R, Beermann J. Gastropod pedal mucus retains microplastics and
promotes the uptake of particles by marine periwinkles. Environ Pollut. 2019;246:688-96.
70. Guven O, Bach L, Munk P, Dinh KV, Mariani P, Nielsen TG. Microplastic does not magnify the acute
effect of PAH pyrene on predatory performance of a tropical fish (Lates calcarifer). Aquat Toxicol.
2018;198:287-93.
71. Hall NM, Berry KLE, Rintoul L, Hoogenboom MO. Microplastic ingestion by scleractinian corals. Mar
Biol. 2015;162(3):725-32.
72. Halstead JE, Smith JA, Carter EA, Lay PA, Johnston EL. Assessment tools for microplastics and natural
fibres ingested by fish in an urbanised estuary. Environ Pollut. 2018;234:552-61.
73. Hankins C, Duffy A, Drisco K. Scleractinian coral microplastic ingestion: Potential calcification effects,
size limits, and retention. Mar Pollut Bull. 2018;135:587-93.
74. Hermabessiere L, Himber C, Boricaud B, Kazour M, Amara R, Cassone AL, et al. Optimization,
performance, and application of a pyrolysis-GC/MS method for the identification of microplastics.
Anal Bioanal Chem. 2018;410(25):6663-76.
75. Hermsen E, Pompe R, Besseling E, Koelmans AA. Detection of low numbers of microplastics in North
Sea fish using strict quality assurance criteria. Mar Pollut Bull. 2017;122(1-2):253-8.
76. Horn D, Miller M, Anderson S, Steele C. Microplastics are ubiquitous on California beaches and enter
the coastal food web through consumption by Pacific mole crabs. Mar Pollut Bull. 2019;139:231-7.
77. Jacob H, Gilson A, Lanctot C, Besson M, Metian M, Lecchini D. No effect of polystyrene microplastics
on foraging activity and survival in a post-larvae coral-reef fish, Acanthurus triostegus. Bull Environ
Contam Toxicol. 2019;102(4):457-61.
78. Jamieson AJ, Brooks LSR, Reid WDK, Piertney SB, Narayanaswamy BE, Linley TD. Microplastics
and synthetic particles ingested by deep-sea amphipods in six of the deepest marine ecosystems on
earth. R Soc Open Sci. 2019;6(2):11.
79. Jeong CB, Kang HM, Lee MC, Kim DH, Han J, Hwang DS, et al. Adverse effects of microplastics and
oxidative stress-induced MAPK/ Nrf2 pathway-mediated defense mechanisms in the marine copepod
Paracyclopina nana. Sci Rep. 2017;7:11.
80. Jung MR, Balazs GH, Work TM, Jones TT, Orski SV, Rodriguez CV, et al. Polymer identification of
plastic debris ingested by pelagic-phase sea turtles in the central pacific. Environ Sci Technol.
2018;52(20):11535-44.
81. Jung MR, Horgen FD, Orski SV, Rodriguez CV, Beers KL, Balazs GH, et al. Validation of ATR FT-IR
to identify polymers of plastic marine debris, including those ingested by marine organisms. Mar
Pollut Bull. 2018;127:704-16.
42
82. Karami A, Golieskardi A, Choo CK, Larat V, Karbalaei S, Salamatinia B. Microplastic and mesoplastic
contamination in canned sardines and sprats. Sci Total Environ. 2018;612:1380-6.
83. Khan MB, Prezant RS. Microplastic abundances in a mussel bed and ingestion by the ribbed marsh
mussel geukensia demissa. Mar Pollut Bull. 2018;130:67-75.
84. Khan FR, Boyle D, Chang E, Bury NR. Do polyethylene microplastic beads alter the intestinal uptake
of Ag in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)? Analysis of the MP vector effect using in vitro gut
sacs. Environ Pollut. 2017;231:200-6.
85. Kolandhasamy P, Su L, Li JN, Qu XY, Jabeen K, Shi HH. Adherence of microplastics to soft tissue of
mussels: A novel way to uptake microplastics beyond ingestion. Sci Total Environ. 2018;610:635-
40.
86. Kuhn S, van Werven B, van Oyen A, Meijboom A, Rebolledo ELB, van Franeker JA. The use of
potassium hydroxide (KOH) solution as a suitable approach to isolate plastics ingested by marine
organisms. Mar Pollut Bull. 2017;115(1-2):86-90.
87. Kumar VE, Ravikumar G, Jeyasanta KI. Occurrence of microplastics in fishes from two landing sites in
Tuticorin, South east coast of India. Mar Pollut Bull. 2018;135:889-94.
88. La Beur L, Henry LA, Kazanidis G, Hennige S, McDonald A, Shaver MP, et al. Baseline assessment of
marine litter and microplastic ingestion by cold-water coral reef benthos at the east mingulay marine
protected area (sea of the hebrides, western scotland). Front Mar Sci. 2019;6:13.
89. Leung J, Chan KYK. Microplastics reduced posterior segment regeneration rate of the polychaete
Perinereis aibuhitensis. Mar Pollut Bull. 2018;129(2):782-6.
90. Li HX, Getzinger GJ, Ferguson PL, Orihuela B, Zhu M, Rittschof D. Effects of toxic leachate from
commercial plastics on larval survival and settlement of the barnacle Amphibalanus amphitrite.
Environ Sci Technol. 2016;50(2):924-31.
91. Li HX, Ma LS, Lin L, Ni ZX, Xu XR, Shi HH, et al. Microplastics in oysters Saccostrea cucullata along
the Pearl River Estuary, China. Environ Pollut. 2018;236:619-25.
92. Liboiron M, Liboiron F, Wells E, Richard N, Zahara A, Mather C, et al. Low plastic ingestion rate in
Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) from newfoundland destined for human consumption collected through
citizen science methods. Mar Pollut Bull. 2016;113(1-2):428-37.
93. Liboiron M, Melvin J, Richard N, Saturno J, Ammendolia J, Liboiron F, et al. Low incidence of plastic
ingestion among three fish species significant for human consumption on the island of
Newfoundland, Canada. Mar Pollut Bull. 2019;141:244-8.
94. Lo HKA, Chan KYK. Negative effects of microplastic exposure on growth and development of
Crepidula onyx. Environ Pollut. 2018;233:588-95.
95. Long M, Paul-Pont I, Hegaret H, Moriceau B, Lambert C, Huvet A, et al. Interactions between
polystyrene microplastics and marine phytoplankton lead to species-specific hetero-aggregation.
96. Luan LP, Wang X, Zheng H, Liu LQ, Luo XX, Li FM. Differential toxicity of functionalized
polystyrene microplastics to clams (Meretrix meretrix) at three key development stages of life
history. Mar Pollut Bull. 2019;139:346-54.
97. Luis LG, Ferreira P, Fonte E, Oliveira M, Guilhermino L. Does the presence of microplastics influence
the acute toxicity of chromium(VI) to early juveniles of the common goby (Pomatoschistus
microps)? A study with juveniles from two wild estuarine populations. Aquat Toxicol.
2015;164:163-74.
98. M'Rabet C, Pringault O, Zmerli-Triki H, Ben Gharbia H, Couet D, Yahia OKD. Impact of two plastic-
derived chemicals, the Bisphenol A and the di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate, exposure on the marine toxic
dinoflagellate Alexandrium pacificum. Mar Pollut Bull. 2018;126:241-9.
99. Macali A, Semenov A, Venuti V, Crupi V, D'Amico F, Rossi B, et al. Episodic records of jellyfish
ingestion of plastic items reveal a novel pathway for trophic transference of marine litter. Sci Rep.
2018;8:5.
100. Mao YF, Ai HN, Chen Y, Zhang ZY, Zeng P, Kang L, et al. Phytoplankton response to polystyrene
microplastics: Perspective from an entire growth period. Chemosphere. 2018;208:59-68.
101. Martinez-Gomez C, Leon VM, Calles S, Gomariz-Olcina M, Vethaak AD. The adverse effects of
virgin microplastics on the fertilization and larval development of sea urchins. Mar Environ Res.
2017;130:69-76.
43
102. Mathalon A, Hill P. Microplastic fibers in the intertidal ecosystem surrounding Halifax Harbor, Nova
Scotia. Mar Pollut Bull. 2014;81(1):69-79.
103. Mecozzi M, Pietroletti M, Monakhova YB. Ftir spectroscopy supported by statistical techniques for
the structural characterization of plastic debris in the marine environment: Application to monitoring
studies. Mar Pollut Bull. 2016;106(1-2):155-61.
104. Messinetti S, Mercurio S, Parolini M, Sugni M, Pennati R. Effects of polystyrene microplastics on
early stages of two marine invertebrates with different feeding strategies. Environ Pollut.
2018;237:1080-7.
105. Messinetti S, Mercurio S, Scari G, Pennati A, Pennati R. Ingested microscopic plastics translocate
from the gut cavity of juveniles of the ascidian Ciona intestinalis. Eur Zool J. 2019;86(1):189-95.
106. Miranda DD, de Carvalho-Souza GF. Are we eating plastic-ingesting fish? Mar Pollut Bull.
2016;103(1-2):109-14.
107. Naidoo T, Goordiyal K, Glassom D. Are nitric acid (HNO3) digestions efficient in isolating
microplastics from juvenile fish? Water Air Soil Pollut. 2017;228(12):11.
108. Naidu SA. Preliminary study and first evidence of presence of microplastics and colorants in green
mussel, Perna viridis (Linnaeus, 1758), from southeast coast of India. Mar Pollut Bull.
2019;140:416-22.
109. Naidu SA, Rao VR, Ramu K. Microplastics in the benthic invertebrates from the coastal waters of
Kochi, Southeastern Arabian Sea. Environ Geochem Health. 2018;40(4):1377-83.
110. Naji A, Nuri M, Vethaak AD. Microplastics contamination in molluscs from the northern part of the
persian gulf. Environ Pollut. 2018;235:113-20.
111. Nel HA, Froneman PW. Presence of microplastics in the tube structure of the reef-building polychaete
Gunnarea gaimardi (Quatrefages 1848). Afr J Mar Sci. 2018;40(1):87-9.
112. Nobre CR, Santana MFM, Maluf A, Cortez FS, Cesar A, Pereira CDS, et al. Assessment of
microplastic toxicity to embryonic development of the sea urchin Lytechinus variegatus
(Echinodermata: Echinoidea). Mar Pollut Bull. 2015;92(1-2):99-104.
113. Okubo N, Takahashi S, Nakano Y. Microplastics disturb the anthozoan-algae symbiotic relationship.
Mar Pollut Bull. 2018;135:83-9.
114. Oliviero M, Tato T, Schiavo S, Fernandez V, Manzo S, Beiras R. Leachates of micronized plastic toys
provoke embryotoxic effects upon sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus. Environ Pollut. 2019;247:706-
15.
115. Ory N, Chagnon C, Felix F, Fernandez C, Ferreira JL, Gallardo C, et al. Low prevalence of
microplastic contamination in planktivorous fish species from the southeast Pacific Ocean. Mar
Pollut Bull. 2018;127:211-6.
116. Peda C, Caccamo L, Fossi MC, Gai F, Andaloro F, Genovese L, et al. Intestinal alterations in
European sea bass Dicentrarchus labrax (Linnaeus, 1758) exposed to microplastics: Preliminary
results. Environ Pollut. 2016;212:251-6.
117. Peters CA, Hendrickson E, Minor EC, Schreiner K, Halbur J, Bratton SP. Pyr-GC/MS analysis of
microplastics extracted from the stomach content of benthivore fish from the Texas Gulf Coast. Mar
Pollut Bull. 2018;137:91-5.
118. Pham CK, Rodriguez Y, Dauphin A, Carrico R, Frias J, Vandeperre F, et al. Plastic ingestion in
oceanic-stage loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) off the North Atlantic subtropical gyre. Mar
Pollut Bull. 2017;121(1-2):222-9.
119. Phuong NN, Zalouk-Vergnoux A, Kamari A, Mouneyrac C, Amiard F, Poirier L, et al. Quantification
and characterization of microplastics in blue mussels (Mytilus edulis): Protocol setup and
preliminary data on the contamination of the French Atlantic coast. Environ Sci Pollut Res.
2018;25(7):6135-44.
120. Pozo K, Gomez V, Torres M, Vera L, Nunez D, Oyarzun P, et al. Presence and characterization of
microplastics in fish of commercial importance from the Biobío region in central Chile. Mar Pollut
Bull. 2019;140:315-9.
121. Prata JC, Lavorante B, Montenegro M, Guilhermino L. Influence of microplastics on the toxicity of
the pharmaceuticals procainamide and doxycycline on the marine microalgae Tetraselmis chuii.
Aquat Toxicol. 2018;197:143-52.
44
122. Rebolledo ELB, Van Franeker JA, Jansen OE, Brasseur S. Plastic ingestion by harbour seals (Phoca
vitulina) in the Netherlands. Mar Pollut Bull. 2013;67(1-2):200-2.
123. Reichert J, Schellenberg J, Schubert P, Wilke T. Responses of reef building corals to microplastic
exposure. Environ Pollut. 2018;237:955-60.
124. Reichert J, Arnold AL, Hoogenboom MO, Schubert P, Wilke T. Impacts of microplastics on growth
and health of hermatypic corals are species-specific. Environ Pollut. 2019;254:9.
125. Remy F, Collard F, Gilbert B, Compere P, Eppe G, Lepoint G. When microplastic is not plastic: The
ingestion of artificial cellulose fibers by macrofauna living in seagrass macrophytodetritus. Environ
Sci Technol. 2015;49(18):11158-66.
126. Renzi M, Blaskovic A, Bernardi G, Russo GF. Plastic litter transfer from sediments towards marine
trophic webs: A case study on holothurians. Mar Pollut Bull. 2018;135:376-85.
127. Renzi M, Guerranti C, Blaslovic A. Microplastic contents from maricultured and natural mussels. Mar
Pollut Bull. 2018;131:248-51.
128. Ribeiro F, Garcia AR, Pereira BP, Fonseca M, Mestre NC, Fonseca TG, et al. Microplastics effects in
Scrobicularia plana. Mar Pollut Bull. 2017;122(1-2):379-91.
129. Rist S, Steensgaard IM, Guven O, Nielsen TG, Jensen LH, Moller LF, et al. The fate of microplastics
during uptake and depuration phases in a blue mussel exposure system. Environ Toxicol Chem.
2019;38(1):99-105.
130. Rivera-Hernandez JR, Fernandez B, Santos-Echeandia J, Garrido S, Morante M, Santos P, et al.
Biodynamics of mercury in mussel tissues as a function of exposure pathway: Natural vs
microplastic routes. Sci Total Environ. 2019;674:412-23.
131. Roch S, Brinker A. Rapid and efficient method for the detection of microplastic in the gastrointestinal
tract of fishes. Environ Sci Technol. 2017;51(8):4522-30.
132. Rochman CM, Lewison RL, Eriksen M, Allen H, Cook A-M, Teh SJ. Polybrominated diphenyl ethers
(PBDEs) in fish tissue may be an indicator of plastic contamination in marine habitats. Sci Total
Environ. 2014;476:622-33.
133. Rochman CM, Tahir A, Williams SL, Baxa DV, Lam R, Miller JT, et al. Anthropogenic debris in
seafood: Plastic debris and fibers from textiles in fish and bivalves sold for human consumption. Sci
Rep. 2015;5:10.
134. Romeo T, Peda C, Fossi MC, Andaloro F, Battaglia P. First record of plastic debris in the stomach of
mediterranean lanternfishes. Acta Adriat. 2016;57(1):115-23.
135. Rosas-Luis R. Description of plastic remains found in the stomach contents of the jumbo squid
dosidicus gigas landed in ecuador during 2014. Mar Pollut Bull. 2016;113(1-2):302-5.
136. Santana MFM, Ascer LG, Custodio MR, Moreira FT, Turra A. Microplastic contamination in natural
mussel beds from a brazilian urbanized coastal region: Rapid evaluation through bioassessment. Mar
Pollut Bull. 2016;106(1-2):183-9.
137. Santana MFM, Moreira FT, Turra A. Trophic transference of microplastics under a low exposure
scenario: Insights on the likelihood of particle cascading along marine food-webs. Mar Pollut Bull.
2017;121(1-2):154-9.
138. Santana MFM, Moreira FT, Pereira CDS, Abessa DMS, Turra A. Continuous exposure to
microplastics does not cause physiological effects in the cultivated mussel Perna perna. Arch
Environ Contam Toxicol. 2018;74(4):594-604.
139. Savoca S, Capillo G, Mancuso M, Bottari T, Crupi R, Branca C, et al. Microplastics occurrence in the
Tyrrhenian waters and in the gastrointestinal tract of two congener species of seabreams. Environ
Toxicol Pharmacol. 2019;67:35-41.
140. Schuyler Q, Hardesty BD, Wilcox C, Townsend K. To eat or not to eat? Debris selectivity by marine
turtles. PLoS One. 2012;7(7).
141. Schuyler Q, Hardesty BD, Wilcox C, Townsend K. Global analysis of anthropogenic debris ingestion
by sea turtles. Conservation biology. 2014;28(1):129-39.
142. Seuront L. Microplastic leachates impair behavioural vigilance and predator avoidance in a temperate
intertidal gastropod. Biol Lett. 2018;14(11):5.
143. Silva P, Nobre CR, Resaffe P, Pereira CDS, Gusmao F. Leachate from microplastics impairs larval
development in brown mussels. Water Res. 2016;106:364-70.
45
144. Sjollema SB, Redondo-Hasselerharm P, Leslie HA, Kraak MHS, Vethaak AD. Do plastic particles
affect microalgal photosynthesis and growth? Aquat Toxicol. 2016;170:259-61.
145. Smith LE. Plastic ingestion by scyliorhinus canicula trawl captured in the north sea. Mar Pollut Bull.
2018;130:6-7.
146. Sun XX, Li QJ, Zhu ML, Liang JH, Zheng S, Zhao YF. Ingestion of microplastics by natural
zooplankton groups in the northern South China Sea. Mar Pollut Bull. 2017;115(1-2):217-24.
147. Sun XX, Liang JH, Zhu ML, Zhao YF, Zhang B. Microplastics in seawater and zooplankton from the
Yellow Sea. Environ Pollut. 2018;242:585-95.
148. Sun XX, Liu T, Zhu ML, Liang JH, Zhao YF, Zhang B. Retention and characteristics of microplastics
in natural zooplankton taxa from the East China Sea. Sci Total Environ. 2018;640:232-42.
149. Sun XM, Chen BJ, Li QF, Liu N, Xia B, Zhu L, et al. Toxicities of polystyrene nano- and
microplastics toward marine bacterium Halomonas alkaliphila. Sci Total Environ. 2018;642:1378-
85.
150. Sundbaek KB, Koch IDW, Villaro CG, Rasmussen NS, Holdt SL, Hartmann NB. Sorption of
fluorescent polystyrene microplastic particles to edible seaweed Fucus vesiculosus. J Appl Phycol.
2018;30(5):2923-7.
151. Sussarellu R, Suquet M, Thomas Y, Lambert C, Fabioux C, Pernet MEJ, et al. Oyster reproduction is
affected by exposure to polystyrene microplastics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113(9):2430-5.
152. Syakti AD, Jaya JV, Rahman A, Hidayati NV, Raza'i TS, Idris F, et al. Bleaching and necrosis of
staghorn coral (Acropora formosa) in laboratory assays: Immediate impact of LDPE microplastics.
Chemosphere. 2019;228:528-35.
153. Syberg K, Nielsen A, Khan FR, Banta GT, Palmqvist A, Jepsen PM. Microplastic potentiates triclosan
toxicity to the marine copepod Acartia tonsa (Dana). J Toxicol Env Health Part A. 2017;80(23-
24):1369-71.
154. Tang J, Ni XZ, Zhou Z, Wang LG, Lin SJ. Acute microplastic exposure raises stress response and
suppresses detoxification and immune capacities in the scleractinian coral Pocillopora damicornis.
155. Thiagarajan V, Iswarya V, Julian PA, Seenivasan R, Chandrasekaran N, Mukherjee A. Influence of
differently functionalized polystyrene microplastics on the toxic effects of P25 TiO2 NPs towards
marine algae Chlorella sp. Aquat Toxicol. 2019;207:208-16.
156. Thushari GGN, Senevirathna JDM, Yakupitiyage A, Chavanich S. Effects of microplastics on sessile
invertebrates in the eastern coast of Thailand: An approach to coastal zone conservation. Mar Pollut
Bull. 2017;124(1):349-55.
157. Tosetto L, Williamson JE, Brown C. Trophic transfer of microplastics does not affect fish personality.
Anim Behav. 2017;123:159-67.
158. Van Cauwenberghe L, Janssen CR. Microplastics in bivalves cultured for human consumption.
159. van Franeker JA, Rebolledo ELB, Hesse E, Ijsseldijk LL, Kuhn S, Leopold M, et al. Plastic ingestion
by harbour porpoises phocoena phocoena in the netherlands: Establishing a standardised method.
Ambio. 2018;47(4):387-97.
160. von Moos N, Burkhardt-Holm P, Kohler A. Uptake and effects of microplastics on cells and tissue of
the blue mussel Mytilus edulis L. After an experimental exposure. Environ Sci Technol.
2012;46(20):11327-35.
161. Wang ZM, Wagner J, Ghosal S, Bedi G, Wall S. SEM/EDS and opticalmicroscopy analyses of
microplastics in ocean trawl and fish guts. Sci Total Environ. 2017;603:616-26.
162. Wang Y, Zhang D, Zhang MX, Mu JL, Ding GH, Mao Z, et al. Effects of ingested polystyrene
microplastics on brine shrimp, Artemia parthenogenetica. Environ Pollut. 2019;244:715-22.
163. Wang J, Lu L, Wang MX, Jiang T, Liu XS, Ru SG. Typhoons increase the abundance of microplastics
in the marine environment and cultured organisms: A case study in Sanggou Bay, China. Sci Total
Environ. 2019;667:1-8.
164. Watts AJR, Urbina MA, Corr S, Lewis C, Galloway TS. Ingestion of plastic microfibers by the crab
Carcinus maenas and its effect on food consumption and energy balance. Environ Sci Technol.
2015;49(24):14597-604.
46
165. Watts AJR, Urbina MA, Goodhead R, Moger J, Lewis C, Galloway TS. Effect of microplastic on the
gills of the shore crab Carcinus maenas. Environ Sci Technol. 2016;50(10):5364-9.
166. Welden NAC, Cowie PR. Environment and gut morphology influence microplastic retention in
langoustine, Nephrops norvegicus. Environ Pollut. 2016;214:859-65.
167. Welden NAC, Cowie PR. Long-term microplastic retention causes reduced body condition in the
langoustine, Nephrops norvegicus. Environ Pollut. 2016;218:895-900.
168. Wesch C, Barthel AK, Braun U, Klein R, Paulus M. No microplastics in benthic eelpout (Zoarces
viviparus): An urgent need for spectroscopic analyses in microplastic detection. Environ Res.
2016;148:36-8.
169. White EM, Clark S, Manire CA, Crawford B, Wang S, Locklin J, et al. Ingested micronizing plastic
particle compositions and size distributions within stranded post-hatchling sea turtles. Environ Sci
Technol. 2018;52(18):10307-16.
170. Wieczorek AM, Morrison L, Croot PL, Allcock AL, MacLoughlin E, Savard O, et al. Frequency of
microplastics in mesopelagic fishes from the northwest atlantic. Front Mar Sci. 2018;5:9.
171. Wieczorek AM, Croot PL, Lombard F, Sheahan JN, Doyle TK. Microplastic ingestion by gelatinous
zooplankton may lower efficiency of the biological pump. Environ Sci Technol. 2019;53(9):5387-
95.
172. Wilcox C, Puckridge M, Schuyler QA, Townsend K, Hardesty BD. A quantitative analysis linking sea
turtle mortality and plastic debris ingestion. Sci Rep. 2018;8:11.
173. Wojcik-Fudalewska D, Normant-Saremba M, Anastacio P. Occurrence of plastic debris in the stomach
of the invasive crab eriocheir sinensis. Mar Pollut Bull. 2016;113(1-2):306-11.
174. Woods MN, Stack ME, Fields DM, Shaw SD, Matrai PA. Microplastic fiber uptake, ingestion, and
egestion rates in the blue mussel (Mytilus edulis). Mar Pollut Bull. 2018;137:638-45.
175. Wright SL, Rowe D, Thompson RC, Galloway TS. Microplastic ingestion decreases energy reserves in
marine worms. Curr Biol. 2013;23(23):R1031-R3.
176. Yu P, Liu ZQ, Wu DL, Chen MH, Lv WW, Zhao YL. Accumulation of polystyrene microplastics in
juvenile Eriocheir sinensis and oxidative stress effects in the liver. Aquat Toxicol. 2018;200:28-36.
177. Zhang C, Chen XH, Wang JT, Tan LJ. Toxic effects of microplastic on marine microalgae
Skeletonema costatum: Interactions between microplastic and algae. Environ Pollut. 2017;220:1282-
8.
178. Zhu L, Wang H, Chen BJ, Sun XM, Qu KM, Xia B. Microplastic ingestion in deep-sea fish from the
South China Sea. Sci Total Environ. 2019;677:493-501.
179. Zhu ZL, Wang SC, Zhao FF, Wang SG, Liu FF, Liu GZ. Joint toxicity of microplastics with triclosan
to marine microalgae Skeletonema costatum. Environ Pollut. 2019;246:509-17.
180. Abbasi S, Soltani N, Keshavarzi B, Moore F, Turner A, Hassanaghaei M. Microplastics in different
tissues of fish and prawn from the Musa Estuary, Persian Gulf. Chemosphere. 2018;205:80-7.
181. Alomar C, Deudero S. Evidence of microplastic ingestion in the shark Galeus melastomus Rafinesque,
1810 in the continental shelf off the western Mediterranean Sea. Environ Pollut. 2017;223:223-9.
182. Alomar C, Sureda A, Capo X, Guijarro B, Tejada S, Deudero S. Microplastic ingestion by Mullus
surmuletus Linnaeus, 1758 fish and its potential for causing oxidative stress. Environ Res.
2017;159:135-42.
183. Arias AH, Ronda AC, Oliva AL, Marcovecchio JE. Evidence of microplastic ingestion by fish from
the Bahia Blanca Estuary in Argentina, South America. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol.
2019;102(6):750-6.
184. Avio CG, Gorbi S, Regoli F. Experimental development of a new protocol for extraction and
characterization of microplastics in fish tissues: First observations in commercial species from
Adriatic Sea. Mar Environ Res. 2015;111:18-26.
185. Avio CG, Cardelli LR, Gorbi S, Pellegrini D, Regoli F. Microplastics pollution after the removal of the
Costa Concordia wreck: First evidences from a biomonitoring case study. Environ Pollut.
2017;227:207-14.
186. Avio CG, Gorbi S, Milan M, Benedetti M, Fattorini D, d'Errico G, et al. Pollutants bioavailability and
toxicological risk from microplastics to marine mussels. Environ Pollut. 2015;198:211-22.
47
187. Azad SMO, Towatana P, Pradit S, Patricia BG, Hue HTT, Jualaong S. First evidence of existence of
microplastics in stomach of some commercial fishes in the lower Gulf of Thailand. Appl Ecol
Environ Res. 2018;16(6):7345-60.
188. Baalkhuyur FM, Bin Dohaish EJA, Elhalwagy MEA, Alikunhi NM, AlSuwailem AM, Rostad A, et al.
Microplastic in the gastrointestinal tract of fishes along the Saudi Arabian Red Sea coast. Mar Pollut
Bull. 2018;131:407-15.
189. Bellas J, Martinez-Armental J, Martinez-Camara A, Besada V, Martinez-Gomez C. Ingestion of
microplastics by demersal fish from the Spanish Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts. Mar Pollut Bull.
2016;109(1):55-60.
190. Bernardini I, Garibaldi F, Canesi L, Fossi MC, Baini M. First data on plastic ingestion by blue sharks
(Prionace glauca) from the Ligurian Sea (North-Western Mediterranean Sea). Mar Pollut Bull.
2018;135:303-10.
191. Besseling E, Foekema EM, Van Franeker JA, Leopold MF, Kuhn S, Rebolledo ELB, et al.
Microplastic in a macro filter feeder: Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae. Mar Pollut Bull.
2015;95(1):248-52.
192. Besseling E, Wegner A, Foekema EM, van den Heuvel-Greve MJ, Koelmans AA. Effects of
microplastic on fitness and PCB bioaccumulation by the lugworm Arenicola marina (L.). Environ
Sci Technol. 2013;47(1):593-600.
193. Birnstiel S, Soares-Gomes A, da Gama BAP. Depuration reduces microplastic content in wild and
farmed mussels. Mar Pollut Bull. 2019;140:241-7.
194. Boerger CM, Lattin GL, Moore SL, Moore CJ. Plastic ingestion by planktivorous fishes in the North
Pacific Central Gyre. Mar Pollut Bull. 2010;60(12):2275-8.
195. Bonello G, Varrella P, Pane L. First evaluation of microplastic content in benthic filter-feeders of the
Gulf of La Spezia (Ligurian Sea). J Aquat Food Prod Technol. 2018;27(3):284-91.
196. Bour A, Haarr A, Keiter S, Hylland K. Environmentally relevant microplastic exposure affects
sediment-dwelling bivalves. Environ Pollut. 2018;236:652-60.
197. Brate ILN, Hurley R, Iversen K, Beyer J, Thomas KV, Steindal CC, et al. Mytilus spp. as sentinels for
monitoring microplastic pollution in Norwegian coastal waters: A qualitative and quantitative study.
198. Brennecke D, Ferreira EC, Costa TMM, Appel D, da Gama BAP, Lenz M. Ingested microplastics (>
100 µm) are translocated to organs of the tropical fiddler crab Uca rapax. Mar Pollut Bull.
2015;96(1-2):491-5.
199. Capolupo M, Franzellitti S, Valbonesi P, Lanzas CS, Fabbri E. Uptake and transcriptional effects of
polystyrene microplastics in larval stages of the Mediterranean mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis.
Environ Pollut. 2018;241:1038-47.
200. Cardozo ALP, Farias EGG, Rodrigues JL, Moteiro IB, Scandolo TM, Dantas DV. Feeding ecology
and ingestion of plastic fragments by Priacanthus arenatus: What's the fisheries contribution to the
problem? Mar Pollut Bull. 2018;130:19-27.
201. Caron AGM, Thomas CR, Berry KLE, Motti CA, Ariel E, Brodie JE. Ingestion of microplastic debris
by green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) in the Great Barrier Reef: Validation of a sequential extraction
protocol. Mar Pollut Bull. 2018;127:743-51.
202. Catarino AI, Thompson R, Sanderson W, Henry TB. Development and optimization of a standard
method for extraction of microplastics in mussels by enzyme digestion of soft tissues. Environ
Toxicol Chem. 2017;36(4):947-51.
203. Catarino AI, Macchia V, Sanderson WG, Thompson RC, Henry TB. Low levels of microplastics (MP)
in wild mussels indicate that MP ingestion by humans is minimal compared to exposure via
household fibres fallout during a meal. Environ Pollut. 2018;237:675-84.
204. Cheung LTO, Lui CY, Fok L. Microplastic contamination of wild and captive flathead grey mullet
(Mugil cephalus). Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(4):11.
205. Cho Y, Shim WJ, Jang M, Han GM, Hong SH. Abundance and characteristics of microplastics in
market bivalves from South Korea. Environ Pollut. 2019;245:1107-16.
206. Chua EM, Shimeta J, Nugegoda D, Morrison PD, Clarke BO. Assimilation of polybrominated
diphenyl ethers from microplastics by the marine amphipod, Allorchestes compressa. Environ Sci
Technol. 2014;48(14):8127-34.
48
207. Cole M, Lindeque P, Fileman E, Halsband C, Galloway TS. The impact of polystyrene microplastics
on feeding, function and fecundity in the marine copepod Calanus helgolandicus. Environ Sci
Technol. 2015;49(2):1130-7.
208. Collard F, Gilbert B, Eppe G, Parmentier E, Das K. Detection of anthropogenic particles in fish
stomachs: An isolation method adapted to identification by Raman spectroscopy. Arch Environ
Contam Toxicol. 2015;69(3):331-9.
209. Collard F, Gilbert B, Compere P, Eppe G, Das K, Jauniaux T, et al. Microplastics in livers of European
anchovies (Engraulis encrasicolus, L.). Environ Pollut. 2017;229:1000-5.
210. Collicutt B, Juanes F, Dudas SE. Microplastics in juvenile Chinook salmon and their nearshore
environments on the east coast of Vancouver Island. Environ Pollut. 2019;244:135-42.
211. Critchell K, Hoogenboom MO. Effects of microplastic exposure on the body condition and behaviour
of planktivorous reef fish (Acanthochromis polyacanthus). PLoS One. 2018;13(3):19.
212. Davidson K, Dudas SE. Microplastic ingestion by wild and cultured manila clams (Venerupis
philippinarum) from Baynes Sound, British Columbia. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol.
2016;71(2):147-56.
213. Desforges JPW, Galbraith M, Ross PS. Ingestion of microplastics by zooplankton in the northeast
Pacific Ocean. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2015;69(3):320-30.
214. Devriese LI, van der Meulen MD, Maes T, Bekaert K, Paul-Pont I, Frere L, et al. Microplastic
contamination in brown shrimp (Crangon crangon, Linnaeus 1758) from coastal waters of the
Southern North Sea and Channel area. Mar Pollut Bull. 2015;98(1-2):179-87.
215. Devriese LI, De Witte B, Vethaak AD, Hostens K, Leslie HA. Bioaccumulation of PCBs from
microplastics in Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus): An experimental study. Chemosphere.
2017;186:10-6.
216. Digka N, Tsangaris C, Torre M, Anastasopoulou A, Zeri C. Microplastics in mussels and fish from the
Northern Ionian Sea. Mar Pollut Bull. 2018;135:30-40.
217. Donohue MJ, Masura J, Gelatt T, Ream R, Baker JD, Faulhaber K, et al. Evaluating exposure of
northern fur seals, callorhinus ursinus, to microplastic pollution through fecal analysis. Mar Pollut
Bull. 2019;138:213-21.
218. Farrell P, Nelson K. Trophic level transfer of microplastic: Mytilus edulis (L.) to Carcinus maenas
(L.). Environ Pollut. 2013;177:1-3.
219. Ferreira GVB, Barletta M, Lima ARA, Morley SA, Justino AKS, Costa MF. High intake rates of
microplastics in a Western Atlantic predatory fish, and insights of a direct fishery effect. Environ
Pollut. 2018;236:706-17.
220. Foekema EM, De Gruijter C, Mergia MT, van Franeker JA, Murk AJ, Koelmans AA. Plastic in North
Sea fish. Environ Sci Technol. 2013;47(15):8818-24.
221. Garnier Y, Jacob H, Guerra AS, Bertucci F, Lecchini D. Evaluation of microplastic ingestion by
tropical fish from Moorea Island, French Polynesia. Mar Pollut Bull. 2019;140:165-70.
222. Giani D, Baini M, Galli M, Casini S, Fossi MC. Microplastics occurrence in edible fish species
(Mullus barbatus and Merluccius merluccius) collected in three different geographical sub-areas of
the Mediterranean Sea
. Mar Pollut Bull. 2019;140:129-37.
223. Goldstein MC, Goodwin DS. Gooseneck barnacles (Lepas spp.) ingest microplastic debris in the North
Pacific Subtropical Gyre. PeerJ. 2013;1:17.
224. Goss H, Jaskiel J, Rotjan R. Thalassia testudinum as a potential vector for incorporating microplastics
into benthic marine food webs. Mar Pollut Bull. 2018;135:1085-9.
225. Gray AD, Weinstein JE. Size- and shape-dependent effects of microplastic particles on adult
daggerblade grass shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio). Environ Toxicol Chem. 2017;36(11):3074-80.
226. Guven O, Gokdag K, Jovanovic B, Kideys AE. Microplastic litter composition of the Turkish
territorial waters of the Mediterranean Sea, and its occurrence in the gastrointestinal tract of fish.
227. Hamer J, Gutow L, Kohler A, Saborowski R. Fate of microplastics in the marine isopod Idotea
emarginata. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48(22):13451-8.
49
228. Hermabessiere L, Paul-Pont I, Cassone AL, Himber C, Receveur J, Jezequel R, et al. Microplastic
contamination and pollutant levels in mussels and cockles collected along the channel coasts.
229. Hernandez-Gonzalez A, Saavedra C, Gago J, Covelo P, Santos MB, Pierce GJ. Microplastics in the
stomach contents of common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) stranded on the Galician coasts (NW
Spain, 2005-2010). Mar Pollut Bull. 2018;137:526-32.
230. Herrera A, Stindlova A, Martinez I, Rapp J, Romero-Kutzner V, Samper MD, et al. Microplastic
ingestion by Atlantic chub mackerel (scomber colias) in the Canary Islands coast. Mar Pollut Bull.
2019;139:127-35.
231. Jabeen K, Su L, Li JN, Yang DQ, Tong CF, Mu JL, et al. Microplastics and mesoplastics in fish from
coastal and fresh waters of China. Environ Pollut. 2017;221:141-9.
232. Jeong CB, Won EJ, Kang HM, Lee MC, Hwang DS, Hwang UK, et al. Microplastic size-dependent
toxicity, oxidative stress induction, and p-JNK and p-p38 activation in the monogonont rotifer
(Brachionus koreanus). Environ Sci Technol. 2016;50(16):8849-57.
233. Jovanovic B, Gokdag K, Guven O, Emre Y, Whitley EM, Kideys AE. Virgin microplastics are not
causing imminent harm to fish after dietary exposure. Mar Pollut Bull. 2018;130:123-31.
234. Kaposi KL, Mos B, Kelaher BP, Dworjanyn SA. Ingestion of microplastic has limited impact on a
marine larva. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48(3):1638-45.
235. Karami A, Golieskardi A, Ho YB, Larat V, Salamatinia B. Microplastics in eviscerated flesh and
excised organs of dried fish. Sci Rep. 2017;7:9.
236. Karlsson TM, Vethaak AD, Almroth BC, Ariese F, van Velzen M, Hassellov M, et al. Screening for
microplastics in sediment, water, marine invertebrates and fish: Method development and
microplastic accumulation. Mar Pollut Bull. 2017;122(1-2):403-8.
237. Kosore C, Ojwang L, Maghanga J, Kamau J, Kimeli A, Omukoto J, et al. Occurrence and ingestion of
microplastics by zooplankton in Kenya's marine environment: First documented evidence. Afr J Mar
Sci. 2018;40(3):225-34.
238. Kroon F, Motti C, Talbot S, Sobral P, Puotinen M. A workflow for improving estimates of
microplastic contamination in marine waters: A case study from North-Western Australia. Environ
Pollut. 2018;238:26-38.
239. Kuhn S, Schaafsma FL, van Werven B, Flores H, Bergmann M, Egelkraut-Holtus M, et al. Plastic
ingestion by juvenile Polar cod (Boreogadus saida) in the Arctic Ocean. Polar Biol.
2018;41(6):1269-78.
240. Li JN, Yang DQ, Li L, Jabeen K, Shi HH. Microplastics in commercial bivalves from china. Environ
Pollut. 2015;207:190-5.
241. Li JN, Qu XY, Su L, Zhang WW, Yang DQ, Kolandhasamy P, et al. Microplastics in mussels along
the coastal waters of china. Environ Pollut. 2016;214:177-84.
242. Li JN, Green C, Reynolds A, Shi HH, Rotchell JM. Microplastics in mussels sampled from coastal
waters and supermarkets in the United Kingdom. Environ Pollut. 2018;241:35-44.
243. Lourenço PM, Serra-Goncalves C, Ferreira JL, Catry T, Granadeiro JP. Plastic and other microfibers
in sediments, macroinvertebrates and shorebirds from three intertidal wetlands of southern Europe
and west Africa. Environ Pollut. 2017;231:123-33.
244. Lusher AL, McHugh M, Thompson RC. Occurrence of microplastics in the gastrointestinal tract of
pelagic and demersal fish from the English Channel. Mar Pollut Bull. 2013;67(1-2):94-9.
245. Lusher AL, Hernandez-Milian G, O'Brien J, Berrow S, O'Connor I, Officer R. Microplastic and
macroplastic ingestion by a deep diving, oceanic cetacean: The True's beaked whale Mesoplodon
mirus. Environ Pollut. 2015;199:185-91.
246. Lusher AL, O'Donnell C, Officer R, O'Connor I. Microplastic interactions with North Atlantic
mesopelagic fish. ICES J Mar Sci. 2016;73(4):1214-25.
247. Magara G, Elia AC, Syberg K, Khan FR. Single contaminant and combined exposures of polyethylene
microplastics and fluoranthene: Accumulation and oxidative stress response in the blue mussel,
Mytilus edulis. J Toxicol Env Health Part A. 2018;81(16):761-73.
248. Mancuso M, Savoca S, Bottari T. First record of microplastics ingestion by European hake Merluccius
merluccius from the Tyrrhenian Sicilian coast (Central Mediterranean Sea). J Fish Biol.
2019;94(3):517-9.
50
249. Markic A, Niemand C, Bridson JH, Mazouni-Gaertner N, Gaertner JC, Eriksen M, et al. Double
trouble in the south pacific subtropical gyre: Increased plastic ingestion by fish in the oceanic
accumulation zone. Mar Pollut Bull. 2018;136:547-64.
250. Mazurais D, Ernande B, Quazuguel P, Severe A, Huelvan C, Madec L, et al. Evaluation of the impact
of polyethylene microbeads ingestion in European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) larvae. Mar
Environ Res. 2015;112:78-85.
251. McGoran AR, Cowie PR, Clark PF, McEvoy JP, Morritt D. Ingestion of plastic by fish: A comparison
of Thames Estuary and Firth of Clyde populations. Mar Pollut Bull. 2018;137:12-23.
252. Mohsen M, Wang Q, Zhang LB, Sun L, Lin CG, Yang HS. Microplastic ingestion by the farmed sea
cucumber Apostichopus japonicus in China. Environ Pollut. 2019;245:1071-8.
253. Morgana S, Ghigliotti L, Estevez-Calvar N, Stifanese R, Wieckzorek A, Doyle T, et al. Microplastics
in the arctic: A case study with sub-surface water and fish samples off Northeast Greenland. Environ
Pollut. 2018;242:1078-86.
254. Murphy F, Russell M, Ewins C, Quinn B. The uptake of macroplastic & microplastic by demersal &
pelagic fish in the northeast atlantic around scotland. Mar Pollut Bull. 2017;122(1-2):353-9.
255. Nadal MA, Alomar C, Deudero S. High levels of microplastic ingestion by the semipelagic fish bogue
Boops boops (L.) around the Balearic Islands. Environ Pollut. 2016;214:517-23.
256. Naidoo T, Smit AJ, Glassom D. Plastic ingestion by estuarine mullet Mugil cephalus (Mugilidae) in an
urban harbour, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Afr J Mar Sci. 2016;38(1):145-9.
257. Nelms SE, Galloway TS, Godley BJ, Jarvis DS, Lindeque PK. Investigating microplastic trophic
transfer in marine top predators. Environ Pollut. 2018;238:999-1007.
258. Nelms SE, Parry HE, Bennett KA, Galloway TS, Godley BJ, Santillo D, et al. What goes in, must
come out: Combining scat-based molecular diet analysis and quantification of ingested microplastics
in a marine top predator. Methods Ecol Evol. 2019;10(10):1712-22.
259. Neves D, Sobral P, Ferreira JL, Pereira T. Ingestion of microplastics by commercial fish off the
Portuguese coast. Mar Pollut Bull. 2015;101(1):119-26.
260. O'Donovan S, Mestre NC, Abel S, Fonseca TG, Carteny CC, Cormier B, et al. Ecotoxicological effects
of chemical contaminants adsorbed to microplastics in the clam Scrobicularia plana. Front Mar Sci.
2018;5:15.
261. Ory NC, Gallardo C, Lenz M, Thiel M. Capture, swallowing, and egestion of microplastics by a
planktivorous juvenile fish. Environ Pollut. 2018;240:566-73.
262. Paul-Pont I, Lacroix C, Fernandez CG, Hegaret H, Lambert C, Le Goic N, et al. Exposure of marine
mussels Mytilus spp. to polystyrene microplastics: Toxicity and influence on fluoranthene
bioaccumulation. Environ Pollut. 2016;216:724-37.
263. Pegado T, Schmid K, Winemiller KO, Chelazzi D, Cincinelli A, Dei L, et al. First evidence of
microplastic ingestion by fishes from the Amazon River estuary. Mar Pollut Bull. 2018;133:814-21.
264. Pellini G, Gomiero A, Fortibuoni T, Ferra C, Grati F, Tassetti AN, et al. Characterization of
microplastic litter in the gastrointestinal tract of Solea solea from the Adriatic Sea. Environ Pollut.
2018;234:943-52.
265. Perez-Venegas DJ, Seguel M, Paves H, Pulgar J, Urbina M, Ahrendt C, et al. First detection of plastic
microfibers in a wild population of South American fur seals (Arctocephalus australis) in the
Chilean Northern Patagonia. Mar Pollut Bull. 2018;136:50-4.
266. Peters CA, Thomas PA, Rieper KB, Bratton SP. Foraging preferences influence microplastic ingestion
by six marine fish species from the Texas Gulf Coast. Mar Pollut Bull. 2017;124(1):82-8.
267. Phuong NN, Poirier L, Pham QT, Lagarde F, Zalouk-Vergnoux A. Factors influencing the microplastic
contamination of bivalves from the French Atlantic coast: Location, season and/or mode of life? Mar
Pollut Bull. 2018;129(2):664-74.
268. Pittura L, Avio CG, Giuliani ME, d'Errico G, Keiter SH, Cormier B, et al. Microplastics as vehicles of
environmental pahs to marine organisms: Combined chemical and physical hazards to the
Mediterranean mussels, Mytilus galloprovincialis. Front Mar Sci. 2018;5:15.
269. Porter A, Lyons BP, Galloway TS, Lewis C. Role of marine snows in microplastic fate and
bioavailability. Environ Sci Technol. 2018;52(12):7111-9.
270. Procter J, Hopkins FE, Fileman ES, Lindeque PK. Smells good enough to eat: Dimethyl sulfide (DMS)
enhances copepod ingestion of microplastics. Mar Pollut Bull. 2019;138:1-6.
51
271. Qu XY, Su L, Li HX, Liang MZ, Shi HH. Assessing the relationship between the abundance and
properties of microplastics in water and in mussels. Sci Total Environ. 2018;621:679-86.
272. Romeo T, Pietro B, Peda C, Consoli P, Andaloro F, Fossi MC. First evidence of presence of plastic
debris in stomach of large pelagic fish in the mediterranean sea. Mar Pollut Bull. 2015;95(1):358-61.
273. Rummel CD, Loder MGJ, Fricke NF, Lang T, Griebeler EM, Janke M, et al. Plastic ingestion by
pelagic and demersal fish from the north sea and baltic sea. Mar Pollut Bull. 2016;102(1):134-41.
274. Setala O, Norkko J, Lehtiniemi M. Feeding type affects microplastic ingestion in a coastal invertebrate
community. Mar Pollut Bull. 2016;102(1):95-101.
275. Silva JDB, Barletta M, Lima ARA, Ferreira GVB. Use of resources and microplastic contamination
throughout the life cycle of grunts (Haemulidae) in a tropical estuary. Environ Pollut.
2018;242:1010-21.
276. Steer M, Cole M, Thompson RC, Lindeque PK. Microplastic ingestion in fish larvae in the western
English Channel. Environ Pollut. 2017;226:250-9.
277. Su L, Deng H, Li BW, Chen QQ, Pettigrove V, Wu CX, et al. The occurrence of microplastic in
specific organs in commercially caught fishes from coast and estuary area of east China. J Hazard
Mater. 2019;365:716-24.
278. Sun XX, Li QJ, Shi YQ, Zhao YF, Zheng S, Liang JH, et al. Characteristics and retention of
microplastics in the digestive tracts of fish from the yellow sea. Environ Pollut. 2019;249:878-85.
279. Tanaka K, Takada H. Microplastic fragments and microbeads in digestive tracts of planktivorous fish
from urban coastal waters. Sci Rep. 2016;6:8.
280. Taylor ML, Gwinnett C, Robinson LF, Woodall LC. Plastic microfibre ingestion by deep-sea
organisms. Sci Rep. 2016;6:9.
281. Teng J, Wang Q, Ran W, Wu D, Liu YF, Sun S, et al. Microplastic in cultured oysters from different
coastal areas of China. Sci Total Environ. 2019;653:1282-92.
282. Vandermeersch G, Van Cauwenberghe L, Janssen CR, Marques A, Granby K, Fait G, et al. A critical
view on microplastic quantification in aquatic organisms. Environ Res. 2015;143:46-55.
283. Vendel AL, Bessa F, Alves VEN, Amorim ALA, Patricio J, Palma ART. Widespread microplastic
ingestion by fish assemblages in tropical estuaries subjected to anthropogenic pressures. Mar Pollut
Bull. 2017;117(1-2):448-55.
284. Vered G, Kaplan A, Avisar D, Shenkar N. Using solitary ascidians to assess microplastic and phthalate
plasticizers pollution among marine biota: A case study of the eastern Mediterranean and Red Sea.
Mar Pollut Bull. 2019;138:618-25.
285. Vroom RJE, Koelmans AA, Besseling E, Halsband C. Aging of microplastics promotes their ingestion
by marine zooplankton. Environ Pollut. 2017;231:987-96.
286. Wagner J, Wang ZM, Ghosal S, Rochman C, Gassel M, Wall S. Novel method for the extraction and
identification of microplastics in ocean trawl and fish gut matrices. Anal Methods. 2017;9(9):1479-
90.
287. Waite HR, Donnelly MJ, Walters LJ. 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. 2018;129(1):179-85.
288. Wang J, Wang MX, Ru SG, Liu XS. High levels of microplastic pollution in the sediments and benthic
organisms of the South Yellow Sea, China. Sci Total Environ. 2019;651:1661-9.
289. Watts AJR, Lewis C, Goodhead RM, Beckett SJ, Moger J, Tyler CR, et al. Uptake and retention of
microplastics by the shore crab Carcinus maenas. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48(15):8823-30.
290. Xiong X, Chen XC, Zhang K, Mei ZG, Hao YJ, Zheng JS, et al. Microplastics in the intestinal tracts of
East Asian finless porpoises (Neophocaena asiaeorientalis sunameri) from Yellow Sea and Bohai
Sea of China. Mar Pollut Bull. 2018;136:55-60.
291. Xu XY, Lee WT, Chan AKY, Lo HS, Shin PKS, Cheung SG. Microplastic ingestion reduces energy
intake in the clam Atactodea striata. Mar Pollut Bull. 2017;124(2):798-802.
292. Zhao SY, Ward JE, Danley M, Mincer TJ. Field-based evidence for microplastic in marine aggregates
and mussels: Implications for trophic transfer. Environ Sci Technol. 2018;52(19):11038-48.
293. Zhu JM, Yu XY, Zhang Q, Li YP, Tan SD, Li D, et al. Cetaceans and microplastics: First report of
microplastic ingestion by a coastal delphinid, Sousa chinensis. Sci Total Environ. 2019;659:649-54.
52
294. Duncan EM, Broderick AC, Fuller WJ, Galloway TS, Godfrey MH, Hamann M, et al. Microplastic
ingestion ubiquitous in marine turtles. Glob Change Biol. 2019;25(2):744-52.
295. Avio CG, Gorbi S, Regoli F. Plastics and microplastics in the oceans: From emerging pollutants to
emerged threat. Mar Environ Res. 2017;128:2-11.
296. Nelms SE, Barnett J, Brownlow A, Davison NJ, Deaville R, Galloway TS, et al. Microplastics in
marine mammals stranded around the british coast: Ubiquitous but transitory? Sci Rep. 2019;9:8.
297. Froese R, Pauly D, eds., 2019. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. www.fishbase.org,
version (12/2019)
298. Palomares M, Pauly D, eds., 2019. SeaLifeBase. World Wide Web electronic publication.
www.sealifebase.org, version (12/2019)
299. Setala O, Fleming-Lehtinen V, Lehtiniemi M. Ingestion and transfer of microplastics in the planktonic
food web. Environ Pollut. 2014;185:77-83.

2020 - Miller - Bioaccumulation and Biomagnification of Microplastics in Marine Organisms - A Review and Meta-Analysis of Current Data

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2020 - Miller - Bioaccumulation and Biomagnification of Microplastics in Marine Organisms - A Review and Meta-Analysis of Current Data

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PLOS ONE

Bioaccumulation and biomagnification of

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240792 October 16, 2020 1 / 25

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240792 October 16, 2020 2 / 25

Materials and methods

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240792 October 16, 2020 3 / 25

Standardisation of contamination data

Assignment to trophic level

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240792 October 16, 2020 4 / 25

Assessment of bioaccumulation and biomagnification

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240792 October 16, 2020 5 / 25

Contamination in primary producers

Contamination in primary consumers

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240792 October 16, 2020 6 / 25

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240792 October 16, 2020 7 / 25

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240792 October 16, 2020 8 / 25

Contamination in secondary consumers

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240792 October 16, 2020 9 / 25

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240792 October 16, 2020 10 / 25

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240792 October 16, 2020 11 / 25

Contamination in tertiary consumers

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240792 October 16, 2020 12 / 25

Contamination in quaternary consumers

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240792 October 16, 2020 13 / 25

a. Field observations. MP uptake by quaternary consumers in situ has been investigated

Evidence for biomagnification across a general marine food web

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240792 October 16, 2020 14 / 25

Evidence for bioaccumulation

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240792 October 16, 2020 15 / 25

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240792 October 16, 2020 16 / 25

Evidence for biomagnification

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240792 October 16, 2020 17 / 25

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240792 October 16, 2020 18 / 25

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240792 October 16, 2020 19 / 25

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240792 October 16, 2020 20 / 25

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240792 October 16, 2020 21 / 25

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240792 October 16, 2020 22 / 25

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240792 October 16, 2020 23 / 25

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240792 October 16, 2020 24 / 25

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240792 October 16, 2020 25 / 25

Bioacccumulation and biomagnification of microplastics in marine organisms: A review and

meta-analysis of current data

Michaela E. Miller1,2,3*, Mark Hamann3, and Frederieke J. Kroon1,2

E-mail: m.miller@aims.gov.au (MM)

ABS Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene

S1 Table. PRISMA Checklist for systematic review and meta-analysis.

(b) Calculations for standardisation of MP contamination data

Post-Feed C. maenas Ingestion

2 → 3.5 24 h 100% ingested MPs 14 days Watts et al. [289]

Farrell and Nelson

PERCENT OF IN SITU STUDIES

1. Akhbarizadeh R, Moore F, Keshavarzi B. Investigating a probable relationship between microplastics

You might also like