Skip to main content
PMC home page
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2024 Oct 16;19(10):e0309377. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0309377

First evidence of microplastic inhalation among free-ranging small cetaceans

Miranda K Dziobak 1,2, Andreas Fahlman 3,4,5, Randall S Wells 6, Ryan Takeshita 7, Cynthia Smith 7, Austin Gray 8, John Weinstein 9, Leslie B Hart 1,*
Editor: Stephen Raverty10
PMCID: PMC11482699  PMID: 39413051

Abstract

Plastic is a ubiquitous environmental contaminant, resulting in widespread exposure across terrestrial and marine spaces. In the environment, plastics can degrade into microparticles where exposure has been documented in a variety of fauna at all trophic levels. Human epidemiological studies have found relationships between inhaled microplastics and oxidative stress and inflammation. Previous studies of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) have reported prevalent exposure to plasticizing chemicals (e.g., phthalates) as well as particle loads in gastrointestinal tracts, but exposure from inhalation has not yet been studied. The objective of this study was to determine if inhalation is a viable route of microplastic exposure for free-ranging dolphins. Exhalation samples were opportunistically collected from dolphins residing in Sarasota Bay, Florida (n = 5) and Barataria Bay, Louisiana (n = 6) during catch-and-release health assessments to screen for microplastic particles. All dolphin samples contained at least one suspected microplastic particle, and polymer composition was determined for 100% of a subset (n = 17) of samples. Additional studies are warranted to better understand the extent of inhaled microplastics, as well as to explore impacts, given potential risks to lung function and health.

Introduction

Microplastics (i.e., plastics < 5mm diameter) are ubiquitous pollutants; thousands of research studies are available on the topic [1–3] and document their presence in terrestrial [4–7], marine [8, 9], freshwater [10], and sea ice environments [11–13]. Previous studies have also tracked their abundance on every continent [14–19] and modeled how they can be transported through the air [20–22]. Because of this ubiquity, humans and wildlife are exposed through multiple mechanisms [23], but primarily via ingestion [24–27] and inhalation [28, 29]. Through ingestion and inhalation, microplastic deposition in the gut [30], stool [31], and lungs [32] are expected; however, these particles have also been detected in human heart [33] and placental tissue [34], as translocation and bloodstream transport can occur for very small microplastics and nanoplastics [35, 36]. Microplastics may also bioaccumulate in organisms; bioaccumulation potential was investigated in various trophic levels in a lake ecosystem in China, and organisms at the highest trophic levels were found to have the highest degree of microplastics [37]. These findings were consistent with other studies reporting microplastic bioaccumulation within trophic levels and in predator-prey relationships [38–40]. Conversely, no evidence of microplastic bioaccumulation within trophic levels has also been observed (e.g., [41], highlighting gaps in current knowledge of microplastic transport and fate. Further research is needed to better understand the role bioaccumulation and trophic transfer play in microplastic exposure, especially in consumers relying on fish and seafood as their main food source. In human epidemiological studies and experimental rodent studies, myriad adverse health impacts have been associated with microplastic exposure including oxidative stress and cytotoxicity [42–45], as well as inflammatory and immune responses related to altered gut microbiota diversity [46]. Additionally, environmental microplastics are often composed of thousands of synthetic chemicals (e.g., phthalates, bisphenol A (BPA), per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), brominated and organophosphate flame retardants [47]) and offer a high surface-to-volume ratio for the adsorption of other environmental contaminants (e.g., organic pollutants [48]; metals [49, 50]; harmful algal bloom toxins [49, 51, 52]; invasive species [53–55]; potentially pathogenic microbes [56, 57]. As a result, microplastics may be a vehicle of exposure to chemicals that have been associated with adverse influences on reproduction [58, 59], development [60], metabolism [61], and cardiovascular health [62, 63].

Human inhalation risk assessments have demonstrated higher particle abundance for indoor environments, a predominance of fragments and fibers, multi-polymeric composition, and particles smaller than 100 μm [64–69]. These risk assessment studies typically involve active and passive sampling equipment that collects air and dust, while human exposure has been directly quantified via sputum screening [70, 71], samples collected by nasal [71] or bronchoalveolar lavage [72], and investigations of lung fluid and tissue collected by surgical methods [28, 72]. Findings from these studies have demonstrated the propensity for both upper respiratory exposure [71] and a deeper infiltration within the respiratory tract, leading to particle accumulation in lung tissue [28, 72]. Although numerous factors, including occupation [73, 74], geographic location [75], and demography [25, 76], can impact microplastic inhalation, humans likely inhale hundreds of microplastic particles per day [25].

Despite abundant evidence of outdoor airborne microplastics [77, 78] and atmospheric fallout [22, 79–81], studies of microplastic inhalation in wildlife are nearly absent. This is especially surprising given widespread evidence of microplastic ingestion in marine wildlife (e.g., multiple fish species [82–84], shorebirds [85–87], sea turtles [88, 89], sharks [90–92], and marine mammals [26, 93–97] and recent studies suggesting that oceans may be sources of atmospheric microplastics [98, 99].

Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) inhabiting Sarasota Bay, FL, USA, have been the focus of health and population abundance studies since 1970 [100]. We recently presented evidence of prevalent exposure to ingested microplastics [94] and phthalate plasticizers [101–103]. Therefore, our objective was to determine if samples from exhaled air collected during routine catch-and-release health assessments [104, 105] can be used to identify and characterize microplastic inhalation exposure for free-ranging bottlenose dolphins.

Materials and methods

Sample collection

Samples from exhaled air were collected from bottlenose dolphins during catch-and-release health assessments conducted in Sarasota Bay, FL, USA, (SB) and Barataria Bay, LA, USA (BB; Fig 1) in May and June 2023, respectively. During these health assessments, individual dolphins were encircled by a seine net and temporarily restrained to collect biological, physiological, and morphological data/samples indicative of their overall health. An experienced veterinary team attended to the dolphins during the examinations and sampling, to ensure their safety and welfare. In SB, exhalation samples were collected by holding a pre-cleaned (deionized (DI) water rinse) petri dish approximately 15 cm above the blowhole. To account for ambient particle contamination, a pre-cleaned petri dish was also held open next to the dolphin during sampling for use as a ‘field blank’. The field blanks were processed in the same way as the samples from exhaled air to account for any potential indoor ambient air contamination that may have occurred during laboratory procedures. Prior to sample collection, the blowhole and surrounding skin was gently dried with cotton gauze to prevent seawater contamination of the exhalation samples. Sample and field blank petri dishes were refrigerated until sample analysis.

Fig 1.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

Bottlenose dolphin study sites: (A) Sarasota Bay, Florida and (B) Barataria Bay, Louisiana. Map created using Esri ArcGIS Pro basemap, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community [106].

For dolphins assessed in BB, samples from exhaled air were collected by rinsing the Fleish flow-cell that was housed inside a pneumotachometer used to evaluate lung function [107]. The flow-cell was rinsed with DI water after it was held over the blowhole to measure respiratory function. The DI water rinse was collected in a glass jar and refrigerated until sample analysis. To account for potential device contamination, the pneumotachometer was rinsed with DI water prior to the sampling of each dolphin; this DI rinse was used as the ‘field blank’.

Bottlenose health assessments were conducted under Scientific Research Permit #26622 (Sarasota Bay) and # 24359 (Barataria Bay), issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Research studies were reviewed and approved by Mote Marine Laboratory (Sarasota Bay) NMFS Atlantic (Barataria Bay) Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUC). The Navy’s Bureau of Medicine and Surgery reviewed and approved the NMFS IACUC protocol for the Barataria Bay health assessments and issued a separate Navy protocol (NRD1265). The lung function studies were approved by the Animal Care Committee of the Oceanografic (Approval number: OCE-2v-19).

Sample analysis

For microplastic processing, pneumotachometer rinses were filtered onto GF/A 1.6 μm glass fiber filters in a fume hood. Petri dish samples were rinsed three times with DI water onto GF/A 1.6 μm glass fiber filters in a fume hood. Samples were left to dry in covered glass petri dishes. Microplastic characterization followed criteria determined by [94]. Briefly, visual identification occurred for particles at least 35 μm in size using a dissection microscope (Leica EZ4, magnification 8-35x). Plastic composition was suspected for particles that melted or were marked when approached with a hot needle (250°C, ‘suspected microplastic particles’; [108, 109]. Suspected microplastic particles were categorized following previously defined criteria [94] based on physical attributes of the individual particle, including shape (e.g., fiber, film, fragment, foam), and color (e.g., transparent, blue, black; [110]. Visual characteristics were also used to further identify suspected plastic particles. For example, fibers were indicated by a smooth, uniform surface that was longer than it was wide [111], while fragments were indicated by smooth or angular edges that appeared to be broken from a larger piece of debris [111]. Fragments could be further classified as a film or a foam if they were flexible and able to be folded (film) or were distorted when handled but returned to the original shape (foam; [111]). Microplastic dimensions were measured using the Leica LAS EZ (version 3.4.0, Switzerland) imaging software system.

A subset of suspected microplastic particles (n = 17) from dolphin samples was analyzed for polymer type by Raman microspectroscopy (Xplora Plus with LabSpec 6 software version 6.5, Horiba Scientific). The subset was chosen based on the predominant types of particles found and placed on double-sided tape for analysis. The spectra were obtained using a 50X or 100X objective lens with a 785 nm or 532 nm laser at 0.1% to 100% power, confocal slit width of 100 μm, hole diameter of 300 μm with gratings of 600 or 1200 grooves/mm and 4s acquisition time. Raman spectral matches were processed using LabSpec6 and matched to OpenSpecy software to determine if particles were plastic or of anthropogenic origin [112]. All of the particles analyzed were matched with spectra from OpenSpecy. For our analysis, OpenSpecy had a Pearson r coefficient cut-off of 0.60. Our average Pearson r coefficient was 0.82 among all our samples.

QA/QC and data analysis

Given the potential for airborne plastic contamination, precautions were taken to ensure sample integrity. A 100% cotton lab coat and clean nitrile gloves were worn during all laboratory analyses. All tools and glassware used in the laboratory were thoroughly rinsed with DI water. Field blanks were collected for each sampled dolphin and processed the same way as the samples to account for any contamination resulting from ambient indoor air. Three positive controls with commercially purchased microplastic particles (e.g., polyethylene and polyester) were used to determine recovery efficiency, and mean recovery percentages exceeded 80% for all control particles. As this was an exploratory study, descriptive statistics were used to summarize particle counts, suspected microplastic shapes, and polymer composition within and between sampling sites. Microplastic particle counts were compared between demographic characteristics (e.g., female vs. male; adult vs. subadult) with a Mann-Whitney U test. Sexual maturity (as determined by several factors including age, calving history, pregnancy diagnosis via ultrasonography, testis size from ultrasound, and sex hormone concentration; [113, 114]), was used to differentiate adults vs. subadults.

Results

Exhalation samples, and matched field blanks, were collected from five SB and six BB dolphins in 2023. Microplastic particles isolated from field blanks included fibers, films, and fragments of multiple pigments, but most of the particles observed in SB field blanks were not similar to particles detected in dolphin samples (Table 1). Among BB samples, however, there were more similarities between exhalation samples and field blanks (Table 1). Suspected MPs identified in exhalation samples were corrected for field contamination by removing particles of the same shape and color from total particle counts (Table 2).

Table 1. Suspected microplastics identified in Sarasota Bay (n = 5) and Barataria Bay (n = 6) bottlenose dolphin exhalation samples.

SB Dolphin ID Most Common Particle(s) Fibers Fragments Films
R Y G B Pu Pi Bk T Yd Br G Pu Y B T Br
F295 Fiber 1 1 2 2 2
Blank 1 1
F277 Fiber 1 1 7* 3 8*
Blank 2
F292 Fiber 1 1 8* 1 8* 1 1
Blank 1 10* 9*
F297 Fiber 3 2 2 4
Blank 3
F326 Fiber 1 2 3
Blank 2
BB Dolphin ID Most Common Particle(s) Fibers Fragments Films
R Y G B Pu Pi Bk T Yd Br G Pu Y B T Br
YR4 Fiber 1 5 5 2 1 1
Blank 1 1 1 2
YR2 Fiber 1 7 1 11 8 1
Blank 2 5 8 8
Y1F Film 3 2 10 7 8
Blank 1 2 9 6
Y71 Fiber 2 1 6 1 2
Blank 1 2 1 2
Y73 Fiber 1 1 4 1 4 2 4
Blank 1 1 1 1 2
Y9F Fiber, Film 1 2 8 1
Blank 1 1
Open in a new tab

*Used or recovered as positive controls during laboratory processing.

Colors: R-red; Y-yellow; G-green; B-blue; Pu-purple; Pi-pink; Bk-black; T-transparent; Yd-yellowed; Br-brown

Highlighted cells indicate particles that were not observed in QA/QC blanks or used as positive controls.

Table 2. Field blank-corrected particles observed in Sarasota Bay (n = 5) and Barataria Bay (n = 6) bottlenose dolphin exhalation samples.

SB Dolphin ID Most Common Particle(s) Fibers Fragments Films Total
R Y G B Pu Pi Bk T Yd Br G Pu Y B T Br
F295 Fiber 1 1 2 2 6
F277 Fiber 1 1 3 5
F292 Fiber 1 1 1 1 1 5
F297 Fiber 3 2 4 9
F326 Fiber 1 3 4
Total 27 0 2 29
BB Dolphin ID Most Common Particle(s) Fibers Fragments Films
R Y G B Pu Pi Bk T Yd Br G Pu Y B T Br
YR4 Fiber, Film 1 1 1 3
YR2 Fiber 1 1 1 3
Y1F Film 3 8 11
Y71 Fiber 2 1 3
Y73 Fiber 1 1 2
Y9F Fiber, Film 1 1 2
Total 14 0 10 24
Open in a new tab

Colors: R-red; Y-yellow; G-green; B-blue; Pu-purple; Pi-pink; Bk-black; T-transparent; Yd-yellowed; Br-brown

Following blank-correction, suspected microplastics were present in 100% of samples collected for this study (n = 11), and all particles were less than 500 μm in size. Fiber lengths ranged between 0.237 μm—1.7041 mm, and widths ranged between 0.0108 μm—0.0839 μm. Film widths ranged between 0.0437μm—0.172μm. Overall, there were 54 unique particles across all exhalation samples, and a nearly even distribution between sites (SB: 29; BB: 25; Table 2). The proportion of fibers and films detected between sampling sites was significantly different (Yates χ2 = 7.19, df = 1, p = 0.007); fibers were more abundant in SB samples (93%), while BB particles were composed of films (44%) and fibers (56%; Fig 2). In addition to differences in particle shape between sites, pigment predominance also varied. SB fibers were mostly green, black, transparent, and brown; BB fibers were mostly red and yellow. There are only two films observed in SB samples (yellow and brown), and most BB films were blue (Table 2).

Fig 2. Proportion of microplastic particle shapes detected in bottlenose dolphins from Sarasota Bay, Florida, and Barataria Bay, Louisiana.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

Particle counts were compared between dolphins sampled at each location (Table 3). There were no differences determined between demographic characteristics (i.e., sex or age class) of the dolphins; however, given our small sample size, this finding may not be representative of either population.

Table 3. Demographic characteristics of bottlenose dolphins sampled from Sarasota Bay (SB), Florida and Barataria Bay (BB) Louisiana.

Dolphin Total Particles Site Sex Age Class
F295 6 SB Female Subadult
F277 5 SB Female Adult
F292 5 SB Male Adult
F297 9 SB Female Subadult
F326 4 SB Male Subadult
YR4 3 BB Male Adult
YR2 3 BB Male Adult
Y1F 11 BB Female Adult
Y71 3 BB Female Adult
Y73 2 BB Female Adult
Y9F 2 BB Female Adult
p * - 0.08 0.65 0.19
Open in a new tab

*calculated using Mann-Whitney U test

A subset of suspected microplastic particles (n = 17; 31.5% of total unique particles) from dolphin samples was analyzed for polymer type. Raman analysis demonstrated that 100% of the particles analyzed were confirmed to be of plastic origin (Table 4). Of the 17 particles, 58% were fibers, and 42% fragments. The most dominant particle identified was polyethylene terephthalate (PET), making up 53% of the microplastic particles analyzed (Table 4). Polyester (PE) was the second most dominant particle type, making up 24% of the particles (Table 4, Fig 3). Other polymers identified included polyamide, polybutylene terephthalate, and poly(methyl methacrylate; PMMA), representing 12%, 6%, and 6% of particles analyzed, respectively (Table 4, Fig 3). Given the variability in polymer type identified and the small sample size, we were underpowered to conduct further stratified comparison studies of polymers detected within and between sampling sites.

Table 4. Particle and polymer type identified in exhalation samples from individual dolphins residing in Sarasota Bay, Florida and Barataria Bay, Louisiana.

Data obtained from OpenSpecy [112].

SB Dolphin ID Particle type Polymer type Pearson r coefficient 
F295 Fiber Polyethylene Terephthalate 0.93
F292 Fragment Polyester 0.77
Fiber Polyethylene Terephthalate 0.92
F326 Fiber Polyethylene Terephthalate 0.9
F297 Fiber Polyethylene Terephthalate 0.88
Fiber Polyethylene Terephthalate 0.91
F277 Fiber Polyethylene Terephthalate 0.88
Fragment Poly(methyl methacrylate) 0.59
Fiber Polyethylene Terephthalate 0.94
Fiber Polyester 0.91
BB Dolphin ID Particle type Polymer type Pearson r coefficient 
YR4 Fragment Polyethylene Terephthalate 0.72
Y73 Fiber Polyethylene Terephthalate 0.88
Y1F Fragment Polyester 0.86
Fragment Polyamide 0.74
Fragment Polyamide 0.67
Fragment Polybutylene terephthalate 0.67
Fiber Polyester 0.79
Open in a new tab

Fig 3.

Fig 3

Open in a new tab

Polymer detection in microplastic particles from bottlenose dolphin exhalation samples in (A) all sampled individuals, (B) dolphins from Sarasota Bay, Florida, and (C) dolphins from Barataria Bay, Louisiana.

Discussion

Microplastic inhalation in free-ranging bottlenose dolphins

To our knowledge, this is the first study to identify and characterize microplastic inhalation exposure in a free-ranging marine mammal. Suspected microplastics were identified in all exhalation samples collected from dolphins residing in Sarasota Bay, FL (n = 5), and Barataria Bay, LA (n = 6). A subset (n = 17) of suspected particles was analyzed with Raman spectroscopy, and plastic composition was confirmed for all samples. These findings suggest inhalation as a mechanism of microplastic exposure for marine mammals.

Airborne microplastic particle distribution and deposition has been reported in both urban and rural areas [115]; therefore, it was expected that microplastics are present in both of our field sites. Environmental contamination by fibrous microplastics is common in urban areas, potentially due to sewage wastewater emissions [116–118]. Evidence provided by [99] shows the potential for sea spray to release microplastics into the atmosphere, so any wastewater discharged into SB could contribute to detection in those dolphins. Although Sarasota operates an urban reclaimed water transmission system [119], temporarily failing, or overwhelmed systems (such as the Bee Ridge Wastewater Reclamation Facility, which has released more than 800 million gallons of reuse water into the bay since 2013; [120]) could result in wastewater discharges into the bay. Further, positive correlations have been observed between particle abundance and human activity [115, 116, 121]. While microplastics are common in urban areas with high levels of human activity, they have also been detected in rural environments with limited human activity [122]. Microplastic particles (microfibers in particular) originating in urban environments have been shown to transport through the atmosphere to reach extremely remote regions of the globe [123], so it seems possible that the proximity of BB to larger cities such as New Orleans (population ~370,000; [124]) could therefore increase vulnerability to microplastic contamination.

Conversely, polymeric composition of inhaled microplastics was different between sampling sites. Of fibrous particles detected in exhalation samples, the majority (80%) were comprised of PET. This is consistent with previous studies observing PET abundance in marine atmospheric microplastic particles (e.g., northern Atlantic Ocean [125], South China Sea [126–128], Baltic Sea [129], the west Pacific Ocean [128] and the Indian Ocean [127]). While PET was detected among samples from both sites, it was much more prevalent in SB particles (70% vs. 29%; Fig 1). PET is most commonly used to produce textiles and fabric [130]; therefore, it would be expected that urban areas susceptible to wastewater discharge (especially from clothes washing) would experience greater PET contamination compared to rural areas. Previous studies conducted in China have linked PET detection with urbanization and increased population density [131, 132] suggesting links between human activity and prevalent contamination. PET has also been detected in atmospheric fallout [79] and deposition [133] in rural sites, thus providing a plausible exposure route for BB dolphins. In addition to PET, polyethylene (PE) was also detected in microplastic particles from SB and BB exhalation samples (20% and 29%, respectively). PE is also commonly used in clothing production and is therefore found in wastewater [117, 118], as well as atmospheric deposition samples [134]. Findings from this study were consistent with human studies of inhaled microplastics [28, 70, 72] in which PET and PE were consistently detected more frequently than other polymer types. Although preliminary, these findings suggest widespread environmental contamination and potential vulnerability to adverse health outcomes related to microplastic exposure.

Health implications

Microplastic toxicity is a function of polymer type [135], chemicals added during production (e.g., phthalates [136]), and adsorbed materials (e.g., organic pollutants [137]). Gaps in knowledge regarding inhalation as an exposure mechanism further complicates understanding health risks. Although available data are limited, inhaled microplastics are suspected to influence lung health. For example, oxidative stress and inflammation induced by microplastic exposure has been shown to result in pulmonary fibrosis in laboratory rodent studies [138–140]. In humans, pulmonary fibrosis is a progressive lung disease with poor prognosis and high mortality risk [141]. Dolphins rely on lung compression and collapse during diving, the capacity of which could be reduced by fibrosis [142]. Additionally, the depth at which lungs compress and collapse determines gas exchange, which would be limited by fibrosis as well [142]. Therefore, inhaled microplastic particles could pose a serious threat to pulmonary health. Microplastic inhalation may also offer an exposure route for other organs in the body. For example, microplastics have previously demonstrated translocation across lung epithelial cells to secondary organs (e.g., liver, kidney, brain [143]). From there, microplastics can induce oxidative stress and inflammation [144–146], leading to downstream tissue damage and increased risk of neoplasia [44]. This inflammation mechanism was demonstrated in laboratory rodent studies in which inflamed ovaries and reduced oocyte quality were attributed to microplastic exposure [147]. As this is the first study to document microplastic exposure via inhalation in a free-ranging cetacean species, further research is needed to understand if this exposure route contributes to or exacerbates the risk of adverse health impacts from microplastics alone, or as part of multiple stressor scenarios.

Strengths and limitations

Plastic composition of suspected MPs was confirmed using Raman spectroscopy, a robust analytical technique that is commonly used in investigations of microplastic polymer types (e.g., [148–150]. Raman spectroscopy involves irradiating a sample with a light source (such as a laser) to provide information on the molecular vibrations [151, 152]. The spectral outputs from this process can be compared to a reference database to facilitate polymer identification. Outputs generated with Raman spectroscopy can be regarded similarly to a human fingerprint, where spectra are unique to each chemical structure [152]. Contamination by ambient microplastic particles during sample collection, processing, and analysis is a significant concern when conducting microplastic assessments. However, we employed rigorous QA/QC protocols to limit any potential contamination including use of 100% cotton lab coats, clean nitrile gloves, and DI rinsed glassware during all laboratory procedures. We also collected a blank with every exhalation sample to account for potential contamination in either the field or in the lab. Further, for data analysis, we employed a conservative approach to blank-correction samples, in which particle shapes and colors observed in blanks were removed from total counts of dolphin samples.

This study relied on opportunistic sampling of dolphins from both study sites; therefore, findings may not be representative of either dolphin population. Our small sample size further limits extrapolations to the larger populations. We also were only able to examine exhaled microplastics. There is the potential for differential deposition of various particles along the respiratory tract which could impact the particle types we detected. Although this has not been studied for microplastics specifically, other particle studies conducted in humans have determined deposition to be size dependent. For example, a previous study reported that 10μm particles will deposit in the mouth, while 0.25μm and 0.1μm particles will deposit in the lungs and alveolar regions respectively [153]. This has not yet been explored in dolphin respiratory tracts and requires further research. Despite efforts to account for ambient contamination, we did observe higher contamination among samples collected via pneumotachometer than petri dish. This could be a result of storage; the pneumotachometer is stored in a case where it is still potentially exposed to ambient particles, while the petri dishes remain sealed until use. To mitigate, a conservative blank correction protocol was employed to ensure that any particles detected in exhalation samples were unique to that sample and not likely to be a result of contamination. Future sampling via pneumotachometer should ensure adequate rinsing of the device prior to use to limit contamination. To standardize across future potential field projects, we recommend sample collection be conducted via petri dish.

Conclusion

Inhaled microplastic particles were detected in all sampled dolphins from Sarasota Bay, Florida (n = 5) and Barataria Bay, Louisiana (n = 6). Findings from this study indicate inhalation as a relevant microplastic exposure route for bottlenose dolphins. Given significant gaps in knowledge regarding the health effects posed by inhaled particles, implications for these findings are unknown; however, laboratory rodent and human epidemiological studies suggest lung damage as a possible outcome of this exposure route. The potential for particle translocation into other tissues presents further opportunities for health risks throughout the individual. For areas like BB, inhaled microplastics are particularly concerning as wildlife in this area experienced myriad health impacts due to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Poor pulmonary health has been reported in Barataria dolphins related to the spill [154], so inhaled microplastic particles could exacerbate existing lung disease. Dolphin respiratory function can be measured using spirometry techniques [155] and could be used during health assessments to help evaluate how microplastics exposure may contribute to adverse health effects and respiratory disease in individual dolphins over time. Further research to understand health implications following inhaled microplastic exposure is warranted, especially among vulnerable populations experiencing adverse pulmonary impacts. A systematic assessment of particle exhalation in Sarasota Bay dolphins is planned to examine life history influences on exposure and associations with health impacts in the well-studied Sarasota Bay dolphin community.

Acknowledgments

Sarasota Bay health assessments were made possible through the efforts of the staff, students, trained volunteers, and scientific collaborators of the Sarasota Dolphin Research Program. We thank Ross Martinson and Andy Garrett for their efforts to ensure the safe capture of the dolphins. The Barataria Bay health assessments leveraged partnerships and collaborations with multiple institutions, including Auburn University, Audubon Nature Institute, Duke University, Florida Institute of Technology, Force Blue, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Marine Mammal Commission, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, National Institute of Standards and Technology, NMFS Health and Stranding Response Program, Omacha, Sarasota Dolphin Research Program, Savannah State, Sea World Australia, SeaWorld and Busch Gardens, University of Connecticut, University of St. Andrews, Valencia Oceanographic, and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Special thanks to Eric Zolman, Todd Speakman, Brian Quigley, Andrew Cheever, Forrest Gomez, Ashley Barratclough, and Forrest Townsend for the essential assistance with dolphin handling and examination in Barataria Bay.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript.

Funding Statement

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R15ES034169 [LH]. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. Sarasota Bay health assessments were funded primarily by Dolphin Quest, Inc. AF was funded by Fundacion Oceanografic and Global Diving Research SL. Barataria Bay health assessments were funded primarily by a Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program grant (no. RC20-1097), with contributions from the Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative and the National Marine Mammal Foundation [CRS, RT].

References

  • 1.Qi R, Jones DL, Li Z, Liu Q, Yan C. Behavior of microplastics and plastic film residues in the soil environment: A critical review. Science of The Total Environment. 2020;703: 134722. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134722 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Jenkins T, Persaud BD, Cowger W, Szigeti K, Roche DG, Clary E, et al. Current State of Microplastic Pollution Research Data: Trends in Availability and Sources of Open Data. Front Environ Sci. 2022;10: 912107. doi: 10.3389/FENVS.2022.912107/BIBTEX [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Adeniji AO, Okaiyeto K, Mohammed JN, Mabaleha M, Tanor EB, George MJ. A mixed method assessment of research productivity on microplastics in various compartments in the environment. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 2023 20:11. 2023;20: 12847–12874. doi: 10.1007/s13762-023-04916-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Campanale C, Galafassi S, Savino I, Massarelli C, Ancona V, Volta P, et al. Microplastics pollution in the terrestrial environments: Poorly known diffuse sources and implications for plants. Science of The Total Environment. 2022;805: 150431. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150431 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Horton AA, Walton A, Spurgeon DJ, Lahive E, Svendsen C. Microplastics in freshwater and terrestrial environments: Evaluating the current understanding to identify the knowledge gaps and future research priorities. Science of The Total Environment. 2017;586: 127–141. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.190 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Duis K, Coors A. Microplastics in the aquatic and terrestrial environment: sources (with a specific focus on personal care products), fate and effects. Environmental Sciences Europe 2016 28:1. 2016;28: 1–25. doi: 10.1186/S12302-015-0069-Y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Surendran U, Jayakumar M, Raja P, Gopinath G, Chellam PV. Microplastics in terrestrial ecosystem: Sources and migration in soil environment. Chemosphere. 2023;318: 137946. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.137946 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Andrady AL. Microplastics in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin. Pergamon; 2011. pp. 1596–1605. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.05.030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.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: 3060–3075. doi: 10.1021/es2031505 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Eerkes-Medrano D, Thompson RC, Aldridge DC. Microplastics in freshwater systems: A review of the emerging threats, identification of knowledge gaps and prioritisation of research needs. Water Res. 2015;75: 63–82. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2015.02.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Kanhai LDK, Gardfeldt K, Krumpen T, Thompson RC, O’Connor I. Microplastics in sea ice and seawater beneath ice floes from the Arctic Ocean. Scientific Reports 2020 10:1. 2020;10: 1–11. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-61948-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kelly A, Lannuzel D, Rodemann T, Meiners KM, Auman HJ. Microplastic contamination in east Antarctic sea ice. Mar Pollut Bull. 2020;154: 111130. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111130 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Geilfus NX, Munson KM, Sousa J, Germanov Y, Bhugaloo S, Babb D, et al. Distribution and impacts of microplastic incorporation within sea ice. Mar Pollut Bull. 2019;145: 463–473. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.06.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Reed S, Clark M, Thompson R, Hughes KA. Microplastics in marine sediments near Rothera Research Station, Antarctica. Mar Pollut Bull. 2018;133: 460–463. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.05.068 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Baptista Neto JA, Gaylarde C, Beech I, Bastos AC, da Silva Quaresma V, de Carvalho DG. Microplastics and attached microorganisms in sediments of the Vitória bay estuarine system in SE Brazil. Ocean Coast Manag. 2019;169: 247–253. doi: 10.1016/J.OCECOAMAN.2018.12.030 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Alimi OS, Fadare OO, Okoffo ED. Microplastics in African ecosystems: Current knowledge, abundance, associated contaminants, techniques, and research needs. Science of The Total Environment. 2021;755: 142422. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142422 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Su L, Nan B, Craig NJ, Pettigrove V. Temporal and spatial variations of microplastics in roadside dust from rural and urban Victoria, Australia: Implications for diffuse pollution. Chemosphere. 2020;252: 126567. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.126567 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Fytianos G, Ioannidou E, Thysiadou A, Mitropoulos AC, Kyzas GZ. Microplastics in Mediterranean Coastal Countries: A Recent Overview. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 2021, Vol 9, Page 98. 2021;9: 98. doi: 10.3390/JMSE9010098 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Sin LT, Balakrishnan V, Bee ST, Bee SL. A Review of the Current State of Microplastic Pollution in South Asian Countries. Sustainability (Switzerland). MDPI; 2023. doi: 10.3390/su15086813 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Allen S, Allen D, Phoenix VR, Le Roux G, Durántez Jiménez P, Simonneau A, et al. Atmospheric transport and deposition of microplastics in a remote mountain catchment. Nature Geoscience 2019 12:5. 2019;12: 339–344. doi: 10.1038/s41561-019-0335-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ebere EC, Wirnkor VA, Ngozi VE, Chizoruo IF, Emeka AC. Airborne Microplastics: A Review Study on Method for Analysis, Occurrence, Movement and Risks. 2019. [cited 10 Mar 2024]. doi: 10.20944/PREPRINTS201908.0316.V1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Huang Y, He T, Yan M, Yang L, Gong H, Wang W, et al. Atmospheric transport and deposition of microplastics in a subtropical urban environment. J Hazard Mater. 2021;416: 126168. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126168 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Yang X, Man YB, Wong MH, Owen RB, Chow KL. Environmental health impacts of microplastics exposure on structural organization levels in the human body. Science of The Total Environment. 2022;825: 154025. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Oliveri Conti G, Ferrante M, Banni M, Favara C, Nicolosi I, Cristaldi A, et al. Micro- and nano-plastics in edible fruit and vegetables. The first diet risks assessment for the general population. Environ Res. 2020;187: 109677. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2020.109677 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Cox KD, Covernton GA, Davies HL, Dower JF, Juanes F, Dudas SE. Human Consumption of Microplastics. Environ Sci Technol. 2019;53: 7068–7074. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b01517 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Kahane-Rapport SR, Czapanskiy MF, Fahlbusch JA, Friedlaender AS, Calambokidis J, Hazen EL, et al. Field measurements reveal exposure risk to microplastic ingestion by filter-feeding megafauna. Nature Communications 2022 13:1. 2022;13: 1–11. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-33334-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Senathirajah K, Attwood S, Bhagwat G, Carbery M, Wilson S, Palanisami T. Estimation of the mass of microplastics ingested–A pivotal first step towards human health risk assessment. J Hazard Mater. 2021;404: 124004. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Amato-Lourenço LF, Carvalho-Oliveira R, Júnior GR, dos Santos Galvão L, Ando RA, Mauad T. Presence of airborne microplastics in human lung tissue. J Hazard Mater. 2021;416: 126124. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126124 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Tokunaga Y, Okochi H, Tani Y, Niida Y, Tachibana T, Saigawa K, et al. Airborne microplastics detected in the lungs of wild birds in Japan. 2023. [cited 26 Oct 2023]. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.138032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Ibrahim YS, Tuan Anuar S, Azmi AA, Wan Mohd Khalik WMA, Lehata S, Hamzah SR, et al. Detection of microplastics in human colectomy specimens. JGH Open. 2021;5: 116–121. doi: 10.1002/jgh3.12457 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Schwabl P, Koppel S, Konigshofer P, Bucsics T, Trauner M, Reiberger T, et al. Detection of Various Microplastics in Human Stool. 2019;171: 453–457. doi: 10.7326/M19-0618 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Jenner LC, Rotchell JM, Bennett RT, Cowen M, Tentzeris V, Sadofsky LR. Detection of microplastics in human lung tissue using μFTIR spectroscopy. Science of The Total Environment. 2022;831: 154907. doi: 10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2022.154907 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Yang Y, Xie E, Du Z, Peng Z, Han Z, Li L, et al. Detection of Various Microplastics in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery. Environ Sci Technol. 2023;57: 10911–10918. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.2c07179 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Ragusa A, Svelato A, Santacroce C, Catalano P, Notarstefano V, Carnevali O, et al. Plasticenta: First evidence of microplastics in human placenta. Environ Int. 2021;146: 106274. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.106274 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Guan Q, Jiang J, Huang Y, Wang Q, Liu Z, Ma X, et al. The landscape of micron-scale particles including microplastics in human enclosed body fluids. J Hazard Mater. 2023;442: 130138. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.130138 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Merrill GB, Hermabessiere L, Rochman CM, Nowacek DP. Microplastics in marine mammal blubber, melon, & other tissues: Evidence of translocation. Environmental Pollution. 2023;335: 122252. doi: 10.1016/J.ENVPOL.2023.122252 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.fei Ma Y, yi You X. Modelling the accumulation of microplastics through food webs with the example Baiyangdian Lake, China. Science of The Total Environment. 2021;762: 144110. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144110 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.McMullen K, Vargas FH, Calle P, Alavarado-Cadena O, Pakhomov EA, Alava JJ. Modelling microplastic bioaccumulation and biomagnification potential in the Galápagos penguin ecosystem using Ecopath and Ecosim (EwE) with Ecotracer. PLoS One. 2024;19. doi: 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0296788 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Miller ME, Hamann M, Kroon FJ. Bioaccumulation and biomagnification of microplastics in marine organisms: A review and meta-analysis of current data. PLoS One. 2020;15: e0240792. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240792 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Alava JJ. Modeling the Bioaccumulation and Biomagnification Potential of Microplastics in a Cetacean Foodweb of the Northeastern Pacific: A Prospective Tool to Assess the Risk Exposure to Plastic Particles. Front Mar Sci. 2020;7: 566101. doi: 10.3389/FMARS.2020.566101/BIBTEX [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Hamilton BM, Rochman CM, Hoellein TJ, Robison BH, Van Houtan KS, Choy CA. Prevalence of microplastics and anthropogenic debris within a deep-sea food web. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2021;675: 23–33. doi: 10.3354/MEPS13846 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Deng Y, Zhang Y, Lemos B, Ren H. Tissue accumulation of microplastics in mice and biomarker responses suggest widespread health risks of exposure. Sci Rep. 2017;7. doi: 10.1038/SREP46687 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Stock V, Böhmert L, Lisicki E, Block R, Cara-Carmona J, Pack LK, et al. Uptake and effects of orally ingested polystyrene microplastic particles in vitro and in vivo. Arch Toxicol. 2019;93: 1817–1833. doi: 10.1007/s00204-019-02478-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Prata JC, da Costa JP, Lopes I, Duarte AC, Rocha-Santos T. Environmental exposure to microplastics: An overview on possible human health effects. Science of The Total Environment. 2020;702: 134455. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134455 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Furukuma S, Fujii N. In vitro cytotoxicity evaluation of plastic marine debris by colony-forming assay. Japanese Journal of Environmental Toxicology. 2016;19: 71–81. doi: 10.11403/JSET.19.71 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Li B, Ding Y, Cheng X, Sheng D, Xu Z, Rong Q, et al. Polyethylene microplastics affect the distribution of gut microbiota and inflammation development in mice. Chemosphere. 2020;244: 125492. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.125492 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Wagner M, Monclús L, Arp HPH, Groh KJ, Engvig M, Muncke J, et al. State of the Science on Plastic Chemicals. 2024. Mar. Available: doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10701706 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Santana-Viera S, Montesdeoca-Esponda S, Guedes-Alonso R, Sosa-Ferrera Z, Santana-Rodríguez JJ. Organic pollutants adsorbed on microplastics: Analytical methodologies and occurrence in oceans. Trends in Environmental Analytical Chemistry. 2021;29: e00114. doi: 10.1016/J.TEAC.2021.E00114 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Lim C, Kim N, Lee J, Yoon Y. Potential of Adsorption of Diverse Environmental Contaminants onto Microplastics. Water (Switzerland). 2022;14: 4086. doi: 10.3390/W14244086/S1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Barus BS, Chen K, Cai M, Li R, Chen H, Li C, et al. Heavy Metal Adsorption and Release on Polystyrene Particles at Various Salinities. Front Mar Sci. 2021;8: 671802. doi: 10.3389/FMARS.2021.671802/BIBTEX [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Wang K, Lin H, Wang S, Dong X, Sun L, Zhou Q, et al. Species diversity and community structure of microalgae living on microplastics in Luoyuan Bay, China. Mar Pollut Bull. 2022;180: 113809. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.113809 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.do Prado Leite I, Menegotto A, da Cunha Lana P, Júnior LLM. A new look at the potential role of marine plastic debris as a global vector of toxic benthic algae. Science of The Total Environment. 2022;838: 156262. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156262 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Gaylarde CC, De Almeida MP, Neves C V, Antônio J, Neto B, Da Fonseca EM. The Importance of Biofilms on Microplastic Particles in Their Sinking Behavior and the Transfer of Invasive Organisms between Ecosystems. Micro 2023, Vol 3, Pages 320–337. 2023;3: 320–337. doi: 10.3390/MICRO3010022 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Li G, Tang Y, Lou J, Wang Y, Yin S, Li L, et al. The promoting effects of soil microplastics on alien plant invasion depend on microplastic shape and concentration. Science of The Total Environment. 2024;926: 172089. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.172089 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.García-Gómez JC, Garrigós M, Garrigós J. Plastic as a Vector of Dispersion for Marine Species With Invasive Potential. A Review. Front Ecol Evol. 2021;9: 629756. doi: 10.3389/FEVO.2021.629756/BIBTEX [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Kirstein I V., Kirmizi S, Wichels A, Garin-Fernandez A, Erler R, Löder, et al. Dangerous hitchhikers? Evidence for potentially pathogenic Vibrio spp. on microplastic particles. Mar Environ Res. 2016;120: 1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.marenvres.2016.07.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Harrison JP, Schratzberger M, Sapp M, Osborn AM. Rapid bacterial colonization of low-density polyethylene microplastics in coastal sediment microcosms. BMC Microbiol. 2014;14: 1–15. doi: 10.1186/s12866-014-0232-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Swan SH. Environmental phthalate exposure in relation to reproductive outcomes and other health endpoints in humans. Environ Res. 2008;108: 177–184. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2008.08.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Radke EG, Braun JM, Meeker JD, Cooper GS. Phthalate exposure and male reproductive outcomes: A systematic review of the human epidemiological evidence. Environ Int. 2018;121: 764–793. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.07.029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Wang Y, Zhu H, Kannan K. A review of biomonitoring of phthalate exposures. Toxics. MDPI AG; 2019. doi: 10.3390/toxics7020021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Radke EG, Galizia A, Thayer KA, Cooper GS. Phthalate exposure and metabolic effects: a systematic review of the human epidemiological evidence. Environment International. Elsevier Ltd; 2019. p. 104768. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.04.040 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Zhu X, Yin T, Yue X, Liao S, Cheang I, Zhu Q, et al. Association of urinary phthalate metabolites with cardiovascular disease among the general adult population. Environ Res. 2021;202: 111764. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.111764 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Su TC, Hwang JJ, Sun CW, Wang SL. Urinary phthalate metabolites, coronary heart disease, and atherothrombotic markers. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2019;173: 37–44. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.02.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Dris R, Gasperi J, Mirande C, Mandin C, Guerrouache M, Langlois V, et al. A first overview of textile fibers, including microplastics, in indoor and outdoor environments. Environmental Pollution. 2017;221: 453–458. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.12.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Mbachu O, Jenkins G, Pratt C, Kaparaju P. A New Contaminant Superhighway? A Review of Sources, Measurement Techniques and Fate of Atmospheric Microplastics. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2020;231: 1–27. doi: 10.1007/S11270-020-4459-4/FIGURES/5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Gaston E, Woo M, Steele C, Sukumaran S, Anderson S. Microplastics Differ Between Indoor and Outdoor Air Masses: Insights from Multiple Microscopy Methodologies. Appl Spectrosc. 2020;74: 1079–1098. doi: 10.1177/0003702820920652 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Xie Y, Li Y, Feng Y, Cheng W, Wang Y. Inhalable microplastics prevails in air: Exploring the size detection limit. Environ Int. 2022;162: 107151. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2022.107151 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Choi H, Lee I, Kim H, Park J, Cho S, Oh S, et al. Comparison of Microplastic Characteristics in the Indoor and Outdoor Air of Urban Areas of South Korea. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2022;233: 1–10. doi: 10.1007/S11270-022-05650-5/TABLES/336312741 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Liao Z, Ji X, Ma Y, Lv B, Huang W, Zhu X, et al. Airborne microplastics in indoor and outdoor environments of a coastal city in Eastern China. J Hazard Mater. 2021;417: 126007. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Huang S, Huang X, Bi R, Guo Q, Yu X, Zeng Q, et al. Detection and Analysis of Microplastics in Human Sputum. Environ Sci Technol. 2022;56: 2476–2486. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c03859 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Jiang Y, Han J, Na J, Fang J, Qi C, Lu J, et al. Exposure to microplastics in the upper respiratory tract of indoor and outdoor workers. Chemosphere. 2022;307. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.136067 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Qiu L, Lu W, Tu C, Li X, Zhang H, Wang S, et al. Evidence of Microplastics in Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid among Never-Smokers: A Prospective Case Series. Environ Sci Technol. 2023;57: 2435–2444. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.2c06880 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Limsiriwong K, Winijkul E. Exploring Personal Exposure to Airborne Microplastics across Various Work Environments in Pathum Thani Province, Thailand. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20: 7162. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20247162 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Shahsavaripour M, Abbasi S, Mirzaee M, Amiri H. Human occupational exposure to microplastics: A cross-sectional study in a plastic products manufacturing plant. Science of The Total Environment. 2023;882: 163576. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163576 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Yuan Z, Li HX, Lin L, Pan YF, Liu S, Hou R, et al. Occurrence and human exposure risks of atmospheric microplastics: A review. Gondwana Research. 2022;108: 200–212. doi: 10.1016/J.GR.2022.02.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Zuri G, Karanasiou A, Lacorte S. Microplastics: Human exposure assessment through air, water, and food. Environ Int. 2023;179: 108150. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2023.108150 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Zhang Y, Kang S, Allen S, Allen D, Gao T, Sillanpää M. Atmospheric microplastics: A review on current status and perspectives. Earth Sci Rev. 2020;203: 103118. doi: 10.1016/J.EARSCIREV.2020.103118 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.O’Brien S, Rauert C, Ribeiro F, Okoffo ED, Burrows SD, O’Brien JW, et al. There’s something in the air: A review of sources, prevalence and behaviour of microplastics in the atmosphere. Science of The Total Environment. 2023;874: 162193. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162193 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Dris R, Gasperi J, Saad M, Mirande C, Tassin B. Synthetic fibers in atmospheric fallout: A source of microplastics in the environment? Mar Pollut Bull. 2016;104: 290–293. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.01.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Cai L, Wang J, Peng J, Tan Z, Zhan Z, Tan X, et al. Characteristic of microplastics in the atmospheric fallout from Dongguan city, China: preliminary research and first evidence. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2017;24: 24928–24935. doi: 10.1007/s11356-017-0116-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Liu K, Wang X, Fang T, Xu P, Zhu L, Li D. Source and potential risk assessment of suspended atmospheric microplastics in Shanghai. 2019. [cited 27 Oct 2023]. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.110 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Arias AH, Ronda AC, Oliva AL, Marcovecchio JE. Evidence of Microplastic Ingestion by Fish from the Bahía Blanca Estuary in Argentina, South America. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 2019;102: 750–756. doi: 10.1007/s00128-019-02604-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Steer M, Cole M, Thompson RC, Lindeque PK. Microplastic ingestion in fish larvae in the western English Channel. Environmental Pollution. 2017;226: 250–259. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.03.062 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Vendel AL, Bessa F, Alves VEN, Amorim ALA, Patrício J, Palma ART. Widespread microplastic ingestion by fish assemblages in tropical estuaries subjected to anthropogenic pressures. Mar Pollut Bull. 2017;117: 448–455. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.01.081 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Flemming SA, Lanctot RB, Price C, Mallory ML, Kühn S, Drever MC, et al. Shorebirds ingest plastics too: what we know, what we do not know, and what we should do next. Environmental Reviews. 2022;30: 537–551. doi: 10.1139/ER-2022-0008/ASSET/IMAGES/ER-2022-0008_TAB2.GIF [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Liu W, Chen X, Liang T, Mu T, Ding Y, Liu Y, et al. Varying abundance of microplastics in tissues associates with different foraging strategies of coastal shorebirds in the Yellow Sea. Science of The Total Environment. 2023;866: 161417. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.161417 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Lourenço PM, Serra-Gonçalves 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. Environmental Pollution. 2017;231: 123–133. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.07.103 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.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: 743–751. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.12.062 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Duncan EM, Broderick AC, Fuller WJ, Galloway TS, Godfrey MH, Hamann M, et al. Microplastic ingestion ubiquitous in marine turtles. Glob Chang Biol. 2019;25: 744–752. doi: 10.1111/gcb.14519 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Alomar C, Deudero S. Evidence of microplastic ingestion in the shark Galeus melastomus Rafinesque, 1810 in the continental shelf off the western Mediterranean Sea. Environmental Pollution. 2017;223: 223–229. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.01.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Parton KJ, Godley BJ, Santillo D, Tausif M, Omeyer LCM, Galloway TS. Investigating the presence of microplastics in demersal sharks of the North-East Atlantic. Scientific Reports 2020 10:1. 2020;10: 1–11. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-68680-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Valente T, Sbrana A, Scacco U, Jacomini C, Bianchi J, Palazzo L, et al. Exploring microplastic ingestion by three deep-water elasmobranch species: A case study from the Tyrrhenian Sea. Environmental Pollution. 2019;253: 342–350. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2019.07.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Courtene-Jones W, Clark NJ, Fischer AC, Smith NS, Thompson RC. Ingestion of Microplastics by Marine Animals. Plastics and the Ocean: Origin, Characterization, Fate, and Impacts. 2022; 349–366. doi: 10.1002/9781119768432.CH12 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Hart LB, Dziobak M, Wells RS, Ertel B, Weinstein J. Microplastics in gastric samples from common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) residing in Sarasota Bay FL (USA). Front Mar Sci. 2022;9: 2287. doi: 10.3389/FMARS.2022.947124/BIBTEX [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Nelms SE, Galloway TS, Godley BJ, Jarvis DS, Lindeque PK. Investigating microplastic trophic transfer in marine top predators. Environmental Pollution. 2018;238: 999–1007. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.02.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.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? Scientific Reports 2019 9:1. 2019;9: 1–8. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-37428-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Zantis LJ, Bosker T, Lawler F, Nelms SE, O’Rorke R, Constantine R, et al. Assessing microplastic exposure of large marine filter-feeders. Science of the Total Environment. 2022;818: 151815. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151815 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Evangeliou N, Tichý O, Eckhardt S, Zwaaftink CG, Brahney J. Sources and fate of atmospheric microplastics revealed from inverse and dispersion modelling: From global emissions to deposition. J Hazard Mater. 2022;432: 128585. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.128585 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Allen S, Allen D, Moss K, Le Roux G, Phoenix VR, Sonke JE. Examination of the ocean as a source for atmospheric microplastics. PLoS One. 2020;15: e0232746. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232746 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Wells RS. Learning from nature: Bottlenose dolphin care and husbandry. Zoo Biol. 2009;28: 635–651. doi: 10.1002/zoo.20252 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Hart LB, Beckingham B, Wells RS, Alten Flagg M, Wischusen K, Moors A, et al. Urinary Phthalate Metabolites in Common Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) From Sarasota Bay, FL, USA. Geohealth. 2018;2: 313–326. doi: 10.1029/2018GH000146 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Dziobak MK, Wells RS, Pisarski EC, Wirth EF, Hart LB. Demographic assessment of mono(2‐ethylhexyl) phthalate (MEHP) and monoethyl phthalate (MEP) concentrations in common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) from Sarasota Bay, FL, USA. Geohealth. 2021;5: e2020GH000348. doi: 10.1029/2020GH000348 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Hart LB, Dziobak MK, Pisarski EC, Wirth EF, Wells RS. Sentinels of synthetics–a comparison of phthalate exposure between common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and human reference populations. PLoS One. 2020;15. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240506 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Barratclough A, Wells RS, Schwacke LH, Rowles TK, Gomez FM, Fauquier DA, et al. Health Assessments of Common Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops truncatus): Past, Present, and Potential Conservation Applications. Front Vet Sci. 2019;6: 496457. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2019.00444 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Wells RS, Rhinehart HL, Hansen LJ, Sweeney JC, Townsend FI, Stone R, et al. Bottlenose Dolphins as Marine Ecosystem Sentinels: Developing a Health Monitoring System. Ecohealth. 2004;1: 246–254. doi: 10.1007/s10393-004-0094-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Light Gray Canvas Base. In: Esri [Internet]. Aug 2024. [cited 26 Aug 2024]. Available: https://basemaps.arcgis.com/arcgis/rest/services/World_Basemap_v2/VectorTileServer [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Fahlman A, Loring SH, Levine G, Rocho-Levine J, Austin T, Brodsky M. Lung mechanics and pulmonary function testing in cetaceans. Journal of Experimental Biology. 2015;218: 2030–2038. doi: 10.1242/jeb.119149 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.De Witte B, Devriese L, Bekaert K, Hoffman S, Vandermeersch G, Cooreman K, et al. Quality assessment of the blue mussel (Mytilus edulis): comparison between commercial and wild types. Mar Pollut Bull. 2014;85: 146–155. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.06.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Devriese LI, van der Meulen MD, Maes T, Bekaert K, Paul-Pont I, Frère 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: 179–187. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.06.051 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Shim WJ, Hong SH, Eo SE. Identification methods in microplastic analysis: a review. Analytical Methods. 2017;9: 1384–1391. doi: 10.1039/C6AY02558G [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Lusher AL, Bråte ILN, Munno K, Hurley RR, Welden NA. Is It or Isn’t It: The Importance of Visual Classification in Microplastic Characterization. Appl Spectrosc. 2020;74: 1139–1153. doi: 10.1177/0003702820930733 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Cowger W, Steinmetz Z, Gray A, Munno K, Lynch J, Hapich H, et al. Microplastic Spectral Classification Needs an Open Source Community: Open Specy to the Rescue! Anal Chem. 2021;93: 7543–7548. doi: 10.1021/acs.analchem.1c00123 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Wells RS. Social Structure and Life History of Bottlenose Dolphins Near Sarasota Bay, Florida: Insights from Four Decades and Five Generations. In: Yamagiwa J, Karczmarski L, editors. Primates and Cetaceans. Springer, Tokyo; 2014. pp. 149–172. doi: 10.1007/978-4-431-54523-1_8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Wells RS, Scott MD, Irvine AB. The Social Structure of Free-Ranging Bottlenose Dolphins. Current Mammalogy. 1987; 247–305. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4757-9909-5_7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Klein M, Bechtel B, Brecht T, Fischer EK. Spatial distribution of atmospheric microplastics in bulk-deposition of urban and rural environments–A one-year follow-up study in northern Germany. Science of The Total Environment. 2023;901: 165923. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165923 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Browne MA, Crump P, Niven SJ, Teuten E, Tonkin A, Galloway T, et al. Accumulation of microplastic on shorelines woldwide: Sources and sinks. Environ Sci Technol. 2011;45: 9175–9179. doi: 10.1021/es201811s [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Napper IE, Thompson RC. Release of synthetic microplastic plastic fibres from domestic washing machines: Effects of fabric type and washing conditions. 2016. [cited 17 Jan 2024]. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.09.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Pirc U, Vidmar M, Mozer A, Kržan A. Emissions of microplastic fibers from microfiber fleece during domestic washing. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2016;23: 22206–22211. doi: 10.1007/s11356-016-7703-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.SBEP. Sarasota Bay Estuary Program. Sarasota, FL; 2014. Available: https://eadn-wc04-1243468.nxedge.io/cdn/wp-content/uploads/CCMP.StateoftheBay-for-website-August2014.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Rodriguez N. Sarasota County Commission addresses wastewater spills. Herald-Tribune. 29 Apr 2019. Available: https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/news/local/sarasota/2019/03/29/sarasota-county-commission-addresses-wastewater-spills/5580600007/. Accessed 22 May 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Luo J, Luan B, Xue F, Qi X, Zhu M, Xu P, et al. Uncovering the relationship between floating marine litter and human activities in watersheds. Mar Pollut Bull. 2024;198: 115893. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.115893 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 122.González-Pleiter M, Edo C, Velázquez D, Casero-Chamorro MC, Leganés F, Quesada A, et al. First detection of microplastics in the freshwater of an Antarctic Specially Protected Area. Mar Pollut Bull. 2020;161: 111811. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111811 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 123.Tatsii D, Bucci S, Bhowmick T, Guettler J, Bakels L, Bagheri G, et al. Shape Matters: Long-Range Transport of Microplastic Fibers in the Atmosphere. Environ Sci Technol. 2024;58: 671–682. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.3c08209 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 124.US Census Bureau. New Orleans city, Louisiana. 2023. [cited 18 Mar 2024]. Available: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/neworleanscitylouisiana/PST045223 [Google Scholar]
  • 125.Goßmann I, Herzke D, Held A, Schulz J, Nikiforov V, Georgi C, et al. Occurrence and backtracking of microplastic mass loads including tire wear particles in northern Atlantic air. Nature Communications 2023 14:1. 2023;14: 1–9. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-39340-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 126.Ding Y, Zou X, Wang C, Feng Z, Wang Y, Fan Q, et al. The abundance and characteristics of atmospheric microplastic deposition in the northwestern South China Sea in the fall. Atmos Environ. 2021;253: 118389. doi: 10.1016/J.ATMOSENV.2021.118389 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 127.Wang X, Li C, Liu K, Zhu L, Song Z, Li D. Atmospheric microplastic over the South China Sea and East Indian Ocean: abundance, distribution and source. J Hazard Mater. 2020;389: 121846. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121846 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 128.Liu M, Ding Y, Huang P, Zheng H, Wang W, Ke H, et al. Microplastics in the western Pacific and South China Sea: Spatial variations reveal the impact of Kuroshio intrusion. Environmental Pollution. 2021;288: 117745. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117745 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 129.Ferrero L, Scibetta L, Markuszewski P, Mazurkiewicz M, Drozdowska V, Makuch P, et al. Airborne and marine microplastics from an oceanographic survey at the Baltic Sea: An emerging role of air-sea interaction? Science of The Total Environment. 2022;824: 153709. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153709 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 130.Kuczenski B, Geyer R. Material flow analysis of polyethylene terephthalate in the US, 1996–2007. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2010;54: 1161–1169. doi: 10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2010.03.013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 131.Li X, Han X, Vogt RD, Zhou J, Zheng B, Zhang Y, et al. Polyethylene terephthalate and di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in surface and core sediments of Bohai Bay, China: Occurrence and ecological risk. Chemosphere. 2022;286: 131904. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.131904 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 132.Liu C, Li J, Zhang Y, Wang L, Deng J, Gao Y, et al. Widespread distribution of PET and PC microplastics in dust in urban China and their estimated human exposure. Environ Int. 2019;128: 116–124. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.04.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 133.Klein M, Fischer EK. Microplastic abundance in atmospheric deposition within the Metropolitan area of Hamburg, Germany. Science of The Total Environment. 2019;685: 96–103. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.405 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 134.Roblin B, Ryan M, Vreugdenhil A, Aherne J. Ambient Atmospheric Deposition of Anthropogenic Microfibers and Microplastics on the Western Periphery of Europe (Ireland). Environ Sci Technol. 2020;54: 11100–11108. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c04000 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 135.Zimmermann L, Göttlich S, Oehlmann J, Wagner M, Völker C. What are the drivers of microplastic toxicity? Comparing the toxicity of plastic chemicals and particles to Daphnia magna. Environmental Pollution. 2020;267: 115392. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115392 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 136.Deng Y, Yan Z, Shen R, Huang Y, Ren H, Zhang Y. Enhanced reproductive toxicities induced by phthalates contaminated microplastics in male mice (Mus musculus). J Hazard Mater. 2021;406: 124644. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124644 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 137.Fu L, Li J, Wang G, Luan Y, Dai W. Adsorption behavior of organic pollutants on microplastics. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2021;217: 112207. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2021.112207 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 138.Cao J, Xu R, Geng Y, Xu S, Guo M. Exposure to polystyrene microplastics triggers lung injury via targeting toll-like receptor 2 and activation of the NF-κB signal in mice. Environmental Pollution. 2023;320: 121068. doi: 10.1016/J.ENVPOL.2023.121068 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 139.Li X, Zhang T, Lv W, Wang H, Chen H, Xu Q, et al. Intratracheal administration of polystyrene microplastics induces pulmonary fibrosis by activating oxidative stress and Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway in mice. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2022;232: 113238. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2022.113238 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 140.Li Y, Shi T, Li X, Sun H, Xia X, Ji X, et al. Inhaled tire-wear microplastic particles induced pulmonary fibrotic injury via epithelial cytoskeleton rearrangement. Environ Int. 2022;164: 107257. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2022.107257 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 141.King TE, Pardo A, Selman M. Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. www.thelancet.com. 2011;378: 1949–61. doi: 10.1016/S0140 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 142.Fahlman A, Hooker SK, Olszowka A, Bostrom BL, Jones DR. Estimating the effect of lung collapse and pulmonary shunt on gas exchange during breath-hold diving: The Scholander and Kooyman legacy. Respir Physiol Neurobiol. 2009;165: 28–39. doi: 10.1016/j.resp.2008.09.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 143.Donkers JM, Höppener EM, Grigoriev I, Will L, Melgert BN, van der Zaan B, et al. Advanced epithelial lung and gut barrier models demonstrate passage of microplastic particles. Microplastics and Nanoplastics 2021 2:1. 2022;2: 1–18. doi: 10.1186/S43591-021-00024-W [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 144.Marcelino RC, Cardoso RM, Domingues ELBC, Gonçalves R V, Lima GDA, Novaes RD. The emerging risk of microplastics and nanoplastics on the microstructure and function of reproductive organs in mammals: A systematic review of preclinical evidence. 2022. [cited 18 Nov 2023]. doi: 10.1016/j.lfs.2022.120404 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 145.Qiao R, Sheng C, Lu Y, Zhang Y, Ren H, Lemos B. Microplastics induce intestinal inflammation, oxidative stress, and disorders of metabolome and microbiome in zebrafish. Science of The Total Environment. 2019;662: 246–253. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.245 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 146.Solomando A, Capó X, Alomar C, Álvarez E, Compa M, Valencia JM, et al. Long-term exposure to microplastics induces oxidative stress and a pro-inflammatory response in the gut of Sparus aurata Linnaeus, 1758. Environmental Pollution. 2020;266: 115295. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115295 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 147.Liu Z, Zhuan Q, Zhang L, Meng L, Fu X, Hou Y. Polystyrene microplastics induced female reproductive toxicity in mice. 2021. [cited 18 Nov 2023]. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.127629 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 148.Enders K, Lenz R, Stedmon CA, Nielsen TG. Abundance, size and polymer composition of marine microplastics ≥ 10 μm in the Atlantic Ocean and their modelled vertical distribution. 2015. [cited 18 Nov 2023]. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.09.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 149.Schymanski D, Goldbeck C, Humpf H-U, Fürst P. Analysis of microplastics in water by micro-Raman spectroscopy: Release of plastic particles from different packaging into mineral water. 2017. [cited 18 Nov 2023]. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2017.11.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 150.Sobhani Z, Al Amin M, Naidu R, Megharaj M, Fang C. Identification and visualisation of microplastics by Raman mapping. Anal Chim Acta. 2019;1077: 191–199. doi: 10.1016/j.aca.2019.05.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 151.Ivleva NP, Wiesheu AC, Niessner R. Microplastic in Aquatic Ecosystems. Angewandte Chemie International Edition. 2017;56: 1720–1739. doi: 10.1002/anie.201606957 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 152.Araujo CF, Nolasco MM, Ribeiro AMP, Ribeiro-Claro PJA. Identification of microplastics using Raman spectroscopy: Latest developments and future prospects. Water Res. 2018;142: 426–440. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2018.05.060 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 153.Morawska L, Buonanno G. The physics of particle formation and deposition during breathing. Nature Reviews Physics 2021 3:5. 2021;3: 300–301. doi: 10.1038/s42254-021-00307-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 154.Smith CR, Rowles TK, Gomez FM, Ivančić M, Colegrove KM, Takeshita R, et al. Poor pulmonary health in Barataria Bay dolphins in the eight years following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Front Mar Sci. 2022;9: 975006. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2022.975006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 155.Borque-Espinosa A, Burgos F, Dennison S, Laughlin R, Manley M, Azzati RC, et al. Pulmonary function testing as a diagnostic tool to assess respiratory health in bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus. Dis Aquat Organ. 2020;138: 17–27. doi: 10.3354/dao03447 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data are within the manuscript.

Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

RESOURCES