Skip to main content
Microplastics and Nanoplastics
Download PDF

Predator traits influence uptake and trophic transfer of nanoplastics in aquatic systems–a mechanistic study

Microplastics and Nanoplastics volume 4, Article number: 20 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Predicting the response of aquatic species to environmental contaminants is challenging, in part because of the diverse biological traits within communities that influence their uptake and transfer of contaminants. Nanoplastics are a contaminant of growing concern, and previous research has documented their uptake and transfer in aquatic food webs. Employing an established method of nanoplastic tracking using metal-doped plastics, we studied the influence of biological traits on the uptake of nanoplastic from water and diet in freshwater predators through two exposure assays. We focused on backswimmers (Anisops wakefieldi) and damselfly larvae (Xanthocnemis zealandica) - two freshwater macroinvertebrates with contrasting physiological and morphological traits related to feeding and respiration strategies. Our findings reveal striking differences in nanoplastic transfer dynamics: damselfly larvae accumulated nanoplastics from water and diet and then efficiently eliminated 92% of nanoplastic after five days of depuration. In contrast, backswimmers did not accumulate nanoplastic from either source. Differences in nanoplastic transfer dynamics may be explained by the contrasting physiological and morphological traits of these organisms. Overall, our results highlight the importance and potential of considering biological traits in predicting transfer of nanoplastics through aquatic food webs.

Introduction

Microplastics (MP) are ubiquitous contaminants with well-established risks to organisms and associated ecosystem processes [1, 2]. A more recent ecological concern stems from fragmentation of environmental plastics into nanoplastics (NP), which are considered an extension of the MP issue [3]. However, because of their small size (< 1000 nm, though some studies define NPs as being < 100 nm [4, 5]) and higher surface area to volume ratio, NP have different modes of toxicity compared to MP, including the potential to permeate biological membranes and accumulate within internal tissues [6].

To assess ecological risks of NP, we must understand their dynamics in aquatic food webs and factors driving their uptake and trophic transfer. NP can enter aquatic food webs by direct uptake from the surrounding environment [7, 8] and indirectly through predator-prey/feeding interactions [9,10,11,12]. However, the relative contributions of these pathways to NP uptake in organisms is unknown. Furthermore, there is limited understanding of the biological/physiological traits that render organisms susceptible to NP uptake.

Aquatic ecosystems contain a diverse community of species, each with unique biological and physiological traits. This diversity presents a major challenge in assessing the risks of environmental contaminants, as these traits can influence the uptake and accumulation and, subsequently, the response of organisms [13,14,15]. For instance, certain organisms with specialized respiratory structures such as gills, spiracles, thin cuticles, and high membrane permeability have an enhanced capacity for direct uptake of dissolved contaminants [15, 16]. A similar pattern is observed with particulate contaminants such as NPs, where species with large gills, such as the freshwater bivalve Corbicula fluminea, have been shown to bioaccumulate NPs [17, 18]. Traits can also influence the indirect transfer of contaminants through trophic interactions, driven by feeding strategy [13]. For example, filter-feeding Daphnia, are particularly vulnerable because they cannot discriminate between phytoplankton and non-food particles, such as plastics [19, 20]. Likewise, the feeding strategy of a predator may influence their uptake of contaminants from prey [13, 21]. While previous field and lab studies have highlighted the influence of certain traits, e.g., feeding strategy, on MP uptake from water [22, 23], equivalent studies on NP are lacking.

In this study, we quantified the relative importance of different NP exposure routes for aquatic organisms and evaluated the influence of physiological traits on NP uptake rates. We first assessed the relative importance of direct (water) and indirect (diet) exposure routes for NP uptake by two predators. Second, we evaluated the influence of predator traits on the trophic transfer and accumulation of NP from diet. To achieve this, we selected two aquatic invertebrate predators with contrasting traits (Fig. 1): backswimmers (Anisops wakefieldi), which are piercer-predators and respire using spiracles at the water surface and red damselfly larvae (Xanthocnemis zealandica), which are engulfer-predators and respire using gills. To examine trophic transfer, we selected Daphnia magna as a prey species because they accumulate high body burdens of NP [24] and are consumed by a wide range of predators. To accurately quantify NP body burdens over time, we used polystyrene NP doped with a palladium (Pd) tracer [25]. Our overall objective was to investigate the influence of species traits on NP uptake and depuration, enabling us to generate more informed, environmentally relevant hypotheses on the relative susceptibility of different organisms to a major emerging pollutant.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Visual representation of the two predator test organisms, backswimmers (Anisops wakefieldi) and damselfly larvae (Xanthocnemis zealandica). Details on their contrasting physiological and ecological characteristics which may influence contaminant uptake are included. Images were obtained from Wikimedia commons

Full size image

Results and discussion

Rapid NP uptake in prey and contrasting uptake rates between predators from the water column

Daphnia rapidly accumulated NP from the water until reaching a plateau (Fig. 2) and becoming fully saturated with NP after ~ 6 h. This aligns with previous research, which shows Daphnia attain full saturation in 4–8 h when exposed to 100–200 nm NP [26, 27]. The maximum saturation concentration (Cmax) was 138.96 ± 9.75 µg NP/mg DW and Daphnia accumulated approximately 20% of the total NP present in the test system over 24-h. The rapid accumulation and high body burden of NP in Daphnia can be attributed to their non-selective filter feeding behaviour, as they have limited ability to reject unwanted particles [19, 28]. While it is possible that NP might penetrate or adhere to the external surfaces of Daphnia in addition to being consumed [29, 30], our study was not designed to disentangle these routes of exposure.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Uptake of NP (µg NP/mg DW) by Daphnia over 24-h from water (Exposure 1). Data points are individual replicates (20 individual Daphnia per replicate) at each time point (0, 1, 6, 12, 24 h). The solid curve represents a Michaelis-Menten model fitted to the data, and shading represents the lower and upper 95% confidence intervals

Full size image

Damselflies had an uptake rate constant (kw) 500 times higher than that for backswimmers (Fig. 3; Table 1). Damselfly larvae accumulated NP consistently over time (Fig. 3a), reaching 3.76 ± 1.37 µg NP/mg DW after 24-h, representing approximately 0.35% of total available NP. In contrast, backswimmers accumulated negligible concentrations of NP (< 0.3 µg NP/mg DW) and showed no consistent increase over time (Fig. 3b). This pattern suggests that the NPs are likely not being taken up internally. Instead, the NPs may be adhering to external surfaces, such as becoming trapped among external surface features like hydrophobic “hairs,” rather than being absorbed into the organism’s tissues. Difference in NP uptake between predators may result from differences in physiological traits, particularly the mode of respiration and associated morphological features. Damselfly larvae extract oxygen from water through large, highly vascularized gills on their abdominal segments which are water permeable [31], potentially facilitating passive NP uptake through the gills. Conversely, backswimmers respire through spiracles (body openings) covered by a plastron (air bubble), isolating the spiracles from water contaminants [21]. Furthermore, many backswimmer body surfaces are covered in tiny hydrophobic hairs [32, 33], making them water impermeable [34]. While NP distribution in the water column was not measured in this study, previous research using the same NPs at similar concentrations (6 mg/L) in freshwater microcosms found that ~ 90% of the NPs remained suspended in the water column after 48 h [35], a duration longer than our exposure period. Additionally, although backswimmers spend some time at the water surface, they are known to move throughout the water column, which would have brought them in contact with the NPs [36]. Thus, the observed low uptake/accumulation of NPs in backswimmers is likely attributed to their physiological traits. Our findings align with previous studies that show differential uptake of dissolved contaminants in organisms with diverse traits. This suggests that while the specific nature of the organism-contaminant interaction may differ depending on whether the contaminant is dissolved or particulate [37], the overarching trend remains consistent. For example, gill-breathing amphipods (Gammarus pulex) exhibited uptake rates of pharmaceuticals 8–27 times higher compared to the air-breathing backswimmer Notonecta glauca [21]. Similarly, surface-breathing species such as Notonecta kirvyi and Ptychoptera sp. had the lowest uptake of the pesticide chlorpyrifos among ten tested invertebrates [34].

Table 1 Uptake rate constants from water (kw, L/mg/d) and prey (kp, mg prey/mg predator/d) and elimination rate constants (kd, d− 1) and their standard errors (SE) for damselfly larvae and backswimmers
Full size table
Fig. 3
figure 3

Uptake of NP (µg NP/mg DW) over time in damselfly larvae (a) and backswimmers (b) when exposed to NP in water (Exposure 1). Data points represent individual replicates (n = 1 invertebrate per replicate) at each time point. Solid lines are bioaccumulation models fitted to the data using Eq. 1 and the shading represents upper and lower 95% confidence intervals. Note the y-axes are one order of magnitude different between (a) and (b)

Full size image

Predators differ in their uptake of NP from prey

Damselfly larvae consumed an average of 7.5 Daphnia per day (out of a maximum of 20 available Daphnia), leading to a gradual accumulation of NP in their bodies (Fig. 3a) and an uptake rate constant from prey (kp) of 0.0361 (Table 1). In contrast, despite consuming about twice as many prey (average of 16.6 out of 20 Daphnia per day), backswimmers did not accumulate any detectable amount of NP from their prey (kp = 0) (Fig. 3b; Table 1). For damselflies, water and prey contributed nearly equally to NP uptake, accounting for 52% and 48%, respectively.

Differences in NP accumulation from prey may be attributed to the distinct feeding strategies of these predators [13]. Damselflies consume their prey whole, ingesting internal and external parts. Backswimmers pierce their prey and suck out only the internal fluids [38]. NP mainly accumulate in the digestive tract and external body surface of Daphnia, with limited transfer to other body tissues [27, 29, 39, 40] so backswimmers likely did not ingest the tissues of Daphnia that accumulated NP. Trophic transfer therefore depends on where NP accumulate in prey and what tissues predators consume.

Rapid depuration of NP by damselfly larvae

Damselfly larvae rapidly eliminated NP, achieving 92% depuration after 5 days (kd=0.633 d− 1) (Table 1; Fig. 4a). Other aquatic organisms have rapid depuration rates of NP, including marine scallops, which eliminated 68% within 3 days when exposed to NP of similar size to ours (250 nm) [41], and oysters which eliminated 92% of 164 nm NP from the digestive gland over 30 days [42]. Likewise, rainbow trout eliminated all NP from their tissues after a 7-day depuration period when exposed to 205 nm NP [43].

Compared with damselflies, backswimmers exhibited substantially slower elimination of NP (kd=0.091) (Fig. 4b). This contrasts with previous studies on dissolved contaminants, where backswimmers rapidly eliminated benzophenone and pharmaceutical compounds [13, 21]. It is possible that backswimmers did not actively uptake any NP internally. Instead, NP may have simply adhered to external body parts making physiological excretion impossible. Indeed, the initial concentration of NPs at Day 0 (0.015 µg NP/mg DW) was not substantially different from the concentration at the end of the experiment (Day 10) (0.048 µg NP/mg DW) suggesting minimal internal uptake. While no major outliers were observed in our study, we recorded slight variations in the uptake and depuration of NPs among individual organisms. These differences reflect the natural variation inherent in communities of field organisms and are likely attributable to slight differences in hunger levels, size, and other physiological processes, such as ingestion/egestion rate.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Uptake and depuration of NP (µg NP/mg DW) by damselfly larvae (a) and backswimmers (b). The left-hand panel depicts the 5-day exposure phase with the modelled total uptake of NP from water and prey combined in red using data generated from Exposure 2. The blue curve is the estimated contribution of direct uptake from water alone based on 24 h Exposure 1 trials. The grey area in (b) indicates where the red and blue areas overlap. The right-hand panel shows the 5-day depuration phase. The data points are individual replicates (n = 1 invertebrate per replicate) at different time points. Uptake and depuration phases were modelled separately: solid lines represent bioaccumulation models fitted to the data using Eq. 3 for the uptake phase and Eq. 1 for the depuration phase. Shading represents upper and lower 95% confidence intervals

Full size image

Conclusions

The influence of biological traits on NP dynamics in freshwater food webs have been largely overlooked. Uptake and effects of NP have been investigated across a broad range of taxonomic groups [1, 2, 44], but it is unclear which traits of organisms influence their NP uptake, and whether these effects are conserved across different taxonomic groups. Our study provides evidence that physiological and morphological traits, such as feeding mode, respiration strategy, and external surface features (e.g., gills, hydrophobic body surfaces), may be more reliable predictors of NP uptake and trophic transfer than an organism’s trophic level alone. Testing every organism for NP uptake is impractical; thus, identifying and understanding the impact of these traits can improve our ability to predict NP behaviour across food webs and guide the development of more accurate ecological models. This approach also enables us to better understand which ecological processes, such as predator-prey interactions, will be most influential in shaping NP dynamics. Direct ingestion of NPs, particularly in species with permeable surface features (e.g., gills) or specialized feeding adaptations like filter-feeders, may be a more significant route of NP uptake. However, indirect uptake through prey can be important for some animals, highlighting the need to consider both routes when modelling NP dynamics. This distinction is important because particulate contaminants like NPs typically enter organisms through ingestion, unlike soluble contaminants that diffuse more passively. We acknowledge that there are a multitude of factors that may influence NP uptake and depuration in the natural environment. Factors such as particle characteristics (size, shape, polymer type, density) can influence NP dynamics; for example, organisms of different sizes exhibit preferences for specific NP sizes [22]. Additionally, variations in exposure conditions, including pH, temperature and natural organic matter concentration, can alter the fate of particles, influencing aggregation and settling rates of NP [45, 46]. Nevertheless, our results suggest that examining animal traits should increase understanding of NP dynamics and improve models designed to predict NP transfer through food webs.

Methods

Nanoplastics

A suspension of metal-doped polystyrene (PS) NPs were synthesized according to previously published methods [25]. These NPs consisted of a PS outer shell and a polyacrylnitrile (PAN) core with chemically entrapped palladium (Pd). This NP structure ensured no PAN or Pd was present on the particle surface [25]. Polystyrene is one of the highest-produced plastic polymers [47] and one of the most common polymers identified in NP samples from environmental freshwaters [48, 49]. NPs had a hydrodynamic diameter of 256.4 ± 1.5 nm (polydispersity index = 0.113) and a zeta potential of -32.1 ± 4.57 mV determined using dynamic light scattering with a Malvern Zetasizer in ultrapure water (Figure S1). Total Pd concentration in the suspension was 73.1 mg/L, confirmed using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), and particle concentration was determined to be 25,975 mg/L, measured by drying 2 mL of suspension at 60 °C for 48 h. Thus, the Pd mass fraction of the NP was approximately 0.28% (w/w) (Supplementary text 1). The density of the model NPs is not significantly affected by Pd inclusion, and the low Pd content is not expected to affect the study results. Plastics and NPs often contain metal additives (e.g., heat stabilizers, colorants, antioxidants), implying that environmental NPs can have varying densities even with the same base polymer.

Study organism collection and maintenance

Adult Daphnia magna from a commercial aquarium supplier were housed in 15 L aquaria in an environmental growth chamber (Thermoline CLIMATRON-520-SL-H, Australia) for a 72-h acclimatization period at 15 °C, under 12:12 h light: dark cycles (400 µmols/m2/second, measured 300 mm from light source). Daphnia were fed daily with 5 mL baker’s yeast suspension (1 g/L deionised water) and aquaria water was replaced with fresh spring water (~ 90%) (Tongariro Natural Spring Water, National Park, New Zealand; pH = 7.3, bicarbonate hardness ~ 117 mg/L) every other day. For our study, we collected a total of 96 macroinvertebrate predator individuals, comprising 48 backswimmers and 48 damselfly larvae. Backswimmers and damselfly larvae were collected from the same pond (36°57’37.8"S 174°55’53.0"E). Backswimmer larvae (8–13 mm in length) were collected from the water’s surface using a net (0.5 mm mesh); damselfly larvae (15–20 mm) were collected by sweeping a net through weedy vegetation near the pond’s edge. Subsequently, predators were placed in two 5 L aquaria containing spring water for 72-h under identical environmental conditions as Daphnia. To minimize natural variation in physiology, organisms were selected within narrow size ranges and within the same life history stage (larvae). Additionally, hunger levels were standardized by feeding predators ad libitum with live Daphnia for 48-h and then starving them for 24-h.

Exposure 1: direct uptake of NP from the water column in prey and predators

We measured direct uptake of NP by prey and predators exclusively from the water column over a 24-h period. Prey and predators were not fed to prevent uptake of NP by feeding and duration was limited to 24-h to minimize physiological stress due to starvation. Daphnia and predators were exposed to NP in 250 mL glass beakers, each filled with 150 mL of spring water. We prepared 15 beakers for each organism, with each beaker holding 20 Daphnia or a single predator. Prior to introducing NP, we determined the baseline levels of Pd in organisms by harvesting three beakers for each species (3 × 20 Daphnia, 3 x each predator), which were subsequently prepared for ICP-MS analysis. We then introduced NP into the beakers at a concentration of 9 mg NP/L. The NPs were dispersed by pipetting the concentrated stock solution of NPs directly into the beaker, beneath the water surface to minimize surface tension effects, which could lead to particles accumulating at the air/water interface. The suspension was then gently stirred to ensure a homogeneous distribution of NPs throughout the entire water column. At 1, 6, 12, and 24 h post-addition, we collected and processed three individuals of each predator species. The organisms were rinsed with ultrapure water to remove adhering NP and prepared for ICP-MS analysis.

Exposure 2: direct uptake of NP from the water column and indirect uptake from prey in predators

In Exposure 2, we measured the total uptake of NP by predators directly from water and indirectly by consumption of contaminated prey over a 5-day period. Subsequently, we measured the depuration of NP in predators over a 5-day period by feeding predators uncontaminated prey. Using these data, along with the uptake rate constants from water (kw) calculated in Exposure 1, uptake and depuration curves were generated for each predator using kinetic models.

Test beakers containing 150 mL spring water and 9 mg NP/L (see explanation for selected concentration at lines 313–319) were established and 20 Daphnia were added to each and left for 24-h (as outlined in Exposure 1) to provide time for them reach NP saturation. Subsequently, individual predators (previously unexposed to NP) were introduced to each beaker, accompanied by a 7 cm glass rod serving as a perch. Thirty-three beakers were prepared for each predator species. Each day during the 5-day uptake phase, predators were moved to fresh beakers containing NP, prey, and a glass rod to ensure a consistent level of prey exposure. Every 24 h, three individuals of each predator were randomly collected and subsequently prepared for ICP-MS analysis. This process was repeated for five days to evaluate the uptake of NP over time. On day 5, the remaining predators were transferred to beakers containing spring water with 20 unexposed Daphnia for a 5-day depuration phase. Three individuals of each predator species were harvested daily between days 6–10 and prepared for ICP-MS analysis to determine the depuration rate of NP.

Sample digestion and NP quantification by ICP-MS

After collection, organisms were dried at 60 °C for 48 h, weighed and prepared for digestion. Samples were individually placed into 80 mL Teflon tubes and 4 mL HNO3 (69%; Surpapur, Merck), 1 mL HCl (37%; Suprapur, Merck), and 1 mL H2O2 (50%; Sigma Aldrich) were added. For every 20 samples, procedural blanks (4 mL HNO3, 1 mL HCl, 1 mL H2O2) were analysed for background Pd levels. Teflon tubes were sealed, placed in a Maxi-44 rotor, and digested in an Ethos-Up Microwave reaction system (Milestone SRL, Italy) at 200 °C for 20 min. The resulting digest was then cooled to room temperature, diluted with 45 mL ultrapure water, and a final weight obtained. 105Pd concentrations in the final solutions were quantitatively analysed on an Agilent 7700 ICP-MS in He mode to reduce polyatomic interferences. In our study, the isotopes 105Pd, 106Pd, and 108Pd had similar isotopic abundances, and thus any of these isotopes could be used to quantify the NPs. In this instance, we chose to use 105Pd to quantify NPs. Calibration standards were prepared in a matrix matched solution from 1000 mg/L single element standard (Inorganic Ventures, USA). A 20 µg/L Tb solution was added as an internal standard to monitor drift and matrix effects. Spike recovery tests were conducted on the invertebrates by adding a known concentration of NPs into the matrix to assess the effectiveness of the digestion protocol in recovering Pd. The recovery rate for triplicate samples of damselfly and backswimmer was 96.5 ± 0.5%, indicating the robustness and reproducibility of the extraction and analysis method. After obtaining Pd concentrations, we then back-calculated NP concentrations for each sample using the known metal: plastic ratio. The instrument limit of detection and limit of quantification (calculated as 10× the limit of detection) for Pd was 0.31 ng/L and 3.1 ng/L, respectively.

Kinetic models to quantify uptake and depuration rates of NP

The concentration of NP in predators over time is a function of direct uptake from water, indirect uptake from prey, and depuration by predators. Despite our chosen NP concentration in both exposure assays (9 mg/L) exceeding natural environmental levels (up to 0.488 mg/L) [50], our study focuses on measuring NP transfer, not assessing ecotoxicological effects. Our transfer rate parameters are independent of the concentration in the water, prey and predators and can be applied to estimates of concentration in any given situation. Specific concentrations of NP are therefore not required; rather, an amount sufficient for tracking and measuring concentration in each compartment was essential. We determined direct uptake rate constants from Exposure 1 trials and depuration rate constants from the Exposure 2 trials. We then used these rate constants to solve for the rate of indirect NP uptake by predators from prey during the 5-day exposure phase. The depuration rate of NP was estimated using linear regression of log-transformed NP concentrations during the 5-day depuration phase (Eq. 1).

$$\:\frac{{C}_{predator}}{t}=\:-{k}_{d}{C}_{predator}$$
(1)

Where Cpredator is the NP concentration in the predator (µg NP/mg DW predator), t is time and kd is the depuration rate constant (d− 1).

NP concentrations in prey over time in Exposure 1 trials were fit with a Michaelis-Menten function, which has been used to model uptake of contaminants [51]. The maximum saturation concentration (Cmax) and the time taken to reach half the value of Cmax (i.e., half saturation constant) were calculated using the “drc” package v3.0-1 in R [52].

The direct uptake rate of NP from water by predators was estimated using nonlinear least squares regression (nls) in base R, following Eq. 2 [13, 53]. Data were taken from the NP concentration in predators over time during Exposure 1.

$$\:{C}_{predator\:}=\frac{{k}_{w}{C}_{water}}{{k}_{d}}\:[1-{e}^{-{k}_{d}t}]\:$$
(2)

Where kw is the uptake rate constant for NP from water (L/mg/d) and Cwater is the concentration of NP in the water (µg/L). The value for Cwater was assumed to remain constant over time and this is why the predators were moved to new beakers every 24-h.

We used kw and kd to determine indirect uptake rates from prey to predators using nonlinear least squares regression (nls) in base R, following Eq. 3 [53]. Data were taken from the NP concentration in predators over time during Exposure 2.

$$\:{C}_{predator\:}=\frac{{k}_{p}{C}_{prey}+{k}_{w}{C}_{water}}{{k}_{d}}\:[1-{e}^{-{k}_{d}t}]\:$$
(3)

Where kp is the uptake rate constant for NP from the prey (mg prey/mg predator/d) and Cprey is the concentration of NP in the prey (µg NP/mg DW prey).

We checked the normality of model regression residuals using Shapiro-Wilk tests and used Q-Q plots to compare the distribution of the standardized residuals to a standard normal distribution. Confidence intervals for plots were estimated using the predFit() function in the “investr” package v1.4.2. All statistical analyses were conducted in R v4.2.1.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

References

  1. Ockenden A, Tremblay LA, Dikareva N, Simon KS. Towards more ecologically relevant investigations of the impacts of microplastic pollution in freshwater ecosystems. Sci Total Environ. 2021;792:148507.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. de Ruijter VN, Redondo-Hasselerharm PE, Gouin T, Koelmans AA. Quality Criteria for Microplastic Effect studies in the Context of Risk Assessment: a critical review. Environ Sci Technol. 2020;54:11692–705.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Mitrano DM, Wick P, Nowack B. Placing nanoplastics in the context of global plastic pollution. Nat Nanotechnol. 2021;16:491–500.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Alimi OS, Budarz F, Hernandez J, L. M., Tufenkji N. Microplastics and nanoplastics in aquatic environments: aggregation, deposition, and enhanced Contaminant Transport. Environ Sci Technol. 2018;52:1704–24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. da Pinto J, et al. Micro(nano)plastics – Analytical challenges towards risk evaluation. TRAC Trends Anal Chem. 2019;111:173–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hendriks L, Kissling VM, Buerki-Thurnherr T, Mitrano DM. Development of single-cell ICP-TOFMS to measure nanoplastics association with human cells. Environ Sci : Nano. 2023;10:3439–3449. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3EN00681F.

  7. Redondo-Hasselerharm PE, Vink G, Mitrano DM, Koelmans AA. Metal-doping of nanoplastics enables accurate assessment of uptake and effects on Gammarus pulex. Environ Sci : Nano. 2021;8:1761–70.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Clark NJ, Khan FR, Mitrano DM, Boyle D, Thompson RC. Demonstrating the translocation of nanoplastics across the fish intestine using palladium-doped polystyrene in a salmon gut-sac. Environ Int. 2022;159:106994.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Chae Y, Kim D, Kim SW, An Y-J. Trophic transfer and individual impact of nano-sized polystyrene in a four-species freshwater food chain. Sci Rep. 2018;8:284.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Holzer M, Mitrano DM, Carles L, Wagner B, Tlili A. Important ecological processes are affected by the accumulation and trophic transfer of nanoplastics in a freshwater periphyton-grazer food chain. Environ Sci : Nano. 2022;9:2990–3003.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Dawson AL, et al. Turning microplastics into nanoplastics through digestive fragmentation by Antarctic krill. Nat Commun. 2018;9:1001.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Kuehr S, Diehle N, Kaegi R, Schlechtriem C. Ingestion of bivalve droppings by benthic invertebrates may lead to the transfer of nanomaterials in the aquatic food chain. Environ Sci Eur. 2021;33:35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Brooks AC, Gaskell PN, Maltby LL. Importance of Prey and Predator feeding behaviors for Trophic transfer and secondary poisoning. Environ Sci Technol. 2009;43:7916–23.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Baird DJ, Van den Brink PJ. Using biological traits to predict species sensitivity to toxic substances. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2007;67:296–301.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Rubach MN, et al. Framework for traits-based assessment in ecotoxicology. Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2011;7:172–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bayona Y, et al. Effect of thiram and of a hydrocarbon mixture on freshwater macroinvertebrate communities in outdoor stream and pond mesocosms: II. Biological and ecological trait responses and leaf litter breakdown. Ecotoxicology. 2015;24:1933–46.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Liu W, et al. Biological uptake, distribution and toxicity of micro(nano)plastics in the aquatic biota: a special emphasis on size-dependent impacts. TRAC Trends Anal Chem. 2024;170:117477.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Kuehr S, Esser D, Schlechtriem C. Invertebrate species for the Bioavailability and Accumulation Assessment of Manufactured Polymer-based Nano‐ and Microplastics. Enviro Toxic Chem. 2022;41:961–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. DeMott WR. The role of taste in food selection by freshwater zooplankton. Oecologia. 1986;69:334–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Heinlaan M, et al. Multi-generation exposure to polystyrene nanoplastics showed no major adverse effects in Daphnia magna. Environ Pollut. 2023;323:121213.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Meredith-Williams M, et al. Uptake and depuration of pharmaceuticals in aquatic invertebrates. Environ Pollut. 2012;165:250–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Scherer C, Brennholt N, Reifferscheid G, Wagner M. Feeding type and development drive the ingestion of microplastics by freshwater invertebrates. Sci Rep. 2017;7:17006.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. McNeish RE, et al. Microplastic in riverine fish is connected to species traits. Sci Rep. 2018;8:11639.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Liu Z, et al. Polystyrene nanoplastic exposure induces immobilization, reproduction, and stress defense in the freshwater cladoceran Daphnia pulex. Chemosphere. 2019;215:74–81.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Mitrano DM, et al. Synthesis of metal-doped nanoplastics and their utility to investigate fate and behaviour in complex environmental systems. Nat Nanotechnol. 2019;14:362–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Rist S, Baun A, Hartmann NB. Ingestion of micro- and nanoplastics in Daphnia magna – quantification of body burdens and assessment of feeding rates and reproduction. Environ Pollut. 2017;228:398–407.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Wang M, Wang W-X. Accumulation kinetics and Gut Microenvironment responses to environmentally relevant doses of Micro/Nanoplastics by Zooplankton Daphnia Magna. Environ Sci Technol. 2023;57:5611–20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Sommer U, Sommer F. Cladocerans versus copepods: the cause of contrasting top–down controls on freshwater and marine phytoplankton. Oecologia. 2006;147:183–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Asghari S, et al. Toxicity of various silver nanoparticles compared to silver ions in Daphnia magna. J Nanobiotechnol. 2012;10:14.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Tourinho PS, et al. Microplastic fibers increase Sublethal effects of AgNP and AgNO 3 in Daphnia magna by changing Cellular Energy Allocation. Enviro Toxic Chem. 2022;41:896–904.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Buchwalter DB, Jenkins JJ, Curtis LR, TEMPERATURE, INFLUENCES ON WATER PERMEABILITY AND CHLORPYRIFOS UPTAKE IN AQUATIC INSECTS WITH DIFFERING RESPIRATORY STRATEGIES. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2003;22:2806.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Balmert A, Bohn HF, Ditsche-Kuru P, Barthlott W. Dry under water: comparative morphology and functional aspects of air-retaining insect surfaces. J Morphol. 2011;272:442–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ditsche-Kuru P, et al. Superhydrophobic surfaces of the water bug Notonecta glauca: a model for friction reduction and air retention. Beilstein J Nanotechnol. 2011;2:137–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Buchwalter DB, Jenkins JJ, Curtis LR. Respiratory strategy is a major determinant of [ 3 H] water and [ 14 C] chlorpyrifos uptake in aquatic insects. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 2002;59:1315–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Tamayo-Belda M, et al. Tracking nanoplastics in freshwater microcosms and their impacts to aquatic organisms. J Hazard Mater. 2023;445:130625.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Matthews PGD, Seymour RS. Haemoglobin as a buoyancy regulator and oxygen supply in the backswimmer(Notonectidae, Anisops). J Exp Biol. 2008;211:3790–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Rivera-Hernández JR, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Peckarsky BL. Aquatic Insect Predator-Prey Relations. BioScience 32, 261–266 (1982).

  39. Schür C, Zipp S, Thalau T, Wagner M. Microplastics but not natural particles induce multigenerational effects in Daphnia magna. Environ Pollut. 2019;113904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113904.

  40. De Felice B, Sugni M, Casati L, Parolini M. Molecular, biochemical and behavioral responses of Daphnia magna under long-term exposure to polystyrene nanoplastics. Environ Int. 2022;164:107264.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Al-Sid-Cheikh M, et al. Whole-body distribution, and Depuration of nanoplastics by the Scallop Pecten maximus at environmentally realistic concentrations. Environ Sci Technol. 2018;52:14480–6. Uptake.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Ribeiro F, et al. Short depuration of oysters intended for human consumption is effective at reducing exposure to nanoplastics. Environ Sci Technol. 2022;56:16716–25.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Clark NJ, Khan FR, Crowther C, Mitrano DM, Thompson RC. Uptake, distribution and elimination of palladium-doped polystyrene nanoplastics in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) following dietary exposure. Sci Total Environ. 2023;854:158765.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Burns EE, Boxall AB. A. Microplastics in the aquatic environment: evidence for or against adverse impacts and major knowledge gaps: Microplastics in the environment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2018;37:2776–96.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Lins TF, O’Brien AM, Kose T, Rochman CM, Sinton D. Toxicity of nanoplastics to zooplankton is influenced by temperature, salinity, and natural particulate matter. Environ Sci : Nano. 2022;9:2678–90.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Pradel A, Catrouillet C, Gigault J. The environmental fate of nanoplastics: what we know and what we need to know about aggregation. NanoImpact. 2023;29:100453.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Plastics Europe. Plastics - the Facts 2022. (2022).

  48. Materić D, et al. Presence of nanoplastics in rural and remote surface waters. Environ Res Lett. 2022;17:054036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Xu Y, Ou Q, Jiao M, Liu G, Van Der Hoek JP. Identification and Quantification of Nanoplastics in Surface Water and Groundwater by Pyrolysis Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry. Environ Sci Technol. 2022;56:4988–97.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Shi C, et al. Emergence of nanoplastics in the aquatic environment and possible impacts on aquatic organisms. Sci Total Environ. 2024;906:167404.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Fernández JA, Vázquez MD, López J, Carballeira A. Modelling the extra and intracellular uptake and discharge of heavy metals in Fontinalis antipyretica transplanted along a heavy metal and pH contamination gradient. Environ Pollut. 2006;139:21–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Ritz C, Baty F, Streibig JC, Gerhard D. Dose-response analysis using R. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0146021.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Gross-Sorokin MY, Grist EPM, Cooke M, Crane M. Uptake and depuration of 4-Nonylphenol by the Benthic Invertebrate Gammarus pulex: how important is feeding rate? Environ Sci Technol. 2003;37:2236–41.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Stuart Morrow for their technical assistance with the ICP-MS work conducted in this study.

Funding

Funding for this project came from the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment Endeavour Programme (C03X1802) to K.S.S and the Swiss National Science Foundation (PCEFP2 186856) to D.M.M.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Environment, The University of Auckland, Science Centre, Building 302, 23 Symonds Street, Auckland CBD, Auckland, 1010, New Zealand

    Amy Ockenden, Melanie Kah & Kevin S. Simon

  2. ETH Zurich, Department of Environmental Systems Science, Universitatstrasse 16, Zurich, 8092, Switzerland

    Denise M. Mitrano

  3. School of Biological Sciences, The University of Auckland, Building 110, 3A Symonds Street, Auckland CBD, Auckland, 1010, New Zealand

    Louis A. Tremblay

  4. Manaaki Whenua-Landcare Research, Lincoln, 7640, New Zealand

    Louis A. Tremblay

Authors
  1. Amy Ockenden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Denise M. Mitrano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Melanie Kah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Louis A. Tremblay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kevin S. Simon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AO and KSS conceptualized the study; AO acquired, analysed and interpreted the data; DMM provided the resources used in this study; AO, DMM, MK, LAT and KSS contributed to the drafting and revising the study.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amy Ockenden.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 2

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ockenden, A., Mitrano, D.M., Kah, M. et al. Predator traits influence uptake and trophic transfer of nanoplastics in aquatic systems–a mechanistic study. Micropl.&Nanopl. 4, 20 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43591-024-00096-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43591-024-00096-4

Keywords