Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 Mar 9;15(3):e0229962. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229962

Chronic microfiber exposure in adult Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes)

Lingling Hu 1,2,¤, Melissa Chernick 1, Anna M Lewis 1, P Lee Ferguson 1, David E Hinton 1,*
Editor: Aldo Corriero3
PMCID: PMC7062270  PMID: 32150587

Abstract

Microplastic fibers (MFs) pollute aquatic habitats globally via sewage release, stormwater runoff, or atmospheric deposition. Of the synthetic MFs, polyester (PES) and polypropylene (PP) are the most common. Field studies show that fish ingest large quantities of MFs. However, few laboratory studies have addressed host responses, particularly at the organ and tissue levels. Adult Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes), a laboratory model fish, were exposed to aqueous concentrations of PES or PP MFs (10,000 MFs/L) for 21 days. Medaka egested 1,367 ± 819 PES MFs (0.1 ± 0.04 mg) and 157 ± 105 PP MFs (1.4 ± 0.06 mg) per 24 hrs, with PP egestion increasing over time. Exposure did not result in changes in body condition, gonadosomatic- or hepatosomatic indices. PES exposure resulted in no reproductive changes, but females exposed to PP MFs produced more eggs over time. MF exposure did not affect embryonic mortality, development, or hatching. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) of gills revealed denuding of epithelium on arches, fusion of primary lamellae, and increased mucus. Histologic sections revealed aneurysms in secondary lamellae, epithelial lifting, and swellings of inner opercular membrane that altered morphology of rostral most gill lamellae. SEM and histochemical analyses showed increased mucous cells and secretions on epithelium of foregut; however, overt abrasions with sloughing of cells were absent. For these reasons, increased focus at the tissue and cell levels proved necessary to appreciate toxicity associated with MFs.

1. Introduction

Microplastic pollution is a global environmental threat [1]. Microplastic fibers (to be referred to as microfibers; MFs) outnumber other types of microplastics, accounting for over 90% in some areas [2]. Worldwide, 9 million tons of fibers were produced in 2016, 60% of which were synthetics such as polyester, acrylic, polypropylene, and nylon [3]. The synthetic fibers used to make textiles (e.g., clothing, upholstery, and rugs) shed MFs during washing and regular use; a single garment can shed over 1,900 MFs per wash [4]. MFs enter the aquatic environment via sewage release, stormwater runoff, or atmospheric deposition [3, 57] where they accumulate and impact biota [8]. Polyester (PES) and polypropylene (PP) are the most commonly used and most frequently observed synthetic MFs in the aquatic environment [3, 9]; hence, their selection for the present study.

Chemicals amended to textiles pose additional risks when released during laundering [1012]. Studies of plastic leachates as well as effluents from textile industries have shown that dyes, surfactants, hydrocarbons, polymerizing monomers, and a variety of other compounds are released and negatively affect fish [13, 14]. For example, guppies (Poecilia reticulata) placed in textile dyeing effluent showed behavioral changes consistent with respiratory impairments including rapid opercular movements, gasping at the surface, and mucus thickening [15]. Gill histology revealed necrosis, hyperplasia, hypertrophy, lamellar fusion, increased mucus production, and sloughing of epithelium [15].

Field studies have reported MF ingestion in various species from zooplankton to mammals [1619]. MFs have been detected in 60% of macroinvertebrates, 49% of shorebirds [16] and in a variety of fishes [2022]. For example, Halstead et al. [20] studied fish from an urbanized estuary in the northern arm of Sydney Harbor, Australia and found PES MFs made up the majority (83%) of microplastic contents in gut lumens.

Despite MFs making up the highest percentage of plastics in specimens collected from the field, there are few laboratory studies describing effects, particularly in fish. Grigorakis et al. [23] found that MFs (50–500 μm long) amended to goldfish (Carassius auratus) diet did not remain in gut any longer than other dietary components. Goldfish fed food containing ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) MFs (0.7–5.0 mm long) for 6 weeks exhibited damage to the buccal cavity including abrasions to epithelium as well as damage to gill filaments and folds of the gut [24].

Gill and gut are sensitive targets for pollutants due to their large surface area and intimate interface with the external environment [25, 26]. Gill alterations can impact vital physiological processes, including: ionic balance, acid-base equilibrium, gaseous exchange, excretion of nitrogenous wastes, and osmoregulation [27]. Although it is a primary barrier to the external environment, less is known about effects on fish intestinal mucosa [26]. And while MFs are often reported in these sites upon necropsy, there are rare descriptions of tissue alterations.

Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes) are a well-established aquarium model fish [28] that are small in size, agastric, have daily oviposition, are easily cultured, have characteristic developmental stages [2932], and a well-defined anatomy [33, 34]. With these characteristics in mind, we sought to determine chronic effects of MFs in this model using exposures with controlled number, type, and characteristics of MFs that increased precision in determination of host responses.

2. Materials and methods

2.1 Experimental animals

Our colony of orange-red (OR) medaka is maintained at Duke University under protocols approved by the Duke University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). Adult, brood stock medaka were maintained at 24°C with a pH of 7.4 in an AHAB recirculating system (Pentair Aquatic Eco-Systems, Apopka, FL) and a 14:10 light:dark cycle. Otohime β1 commercial dry diet (200–360 μm, Pentair Aquatic Eco-Systems) was fed to fish three times per day, and Artemia nauplii (90% Great Lakes Strain, Pentair Aquatic Eco-Systems) were fed along with dry diet during the morning and afternoon feedings.

2.2 Microfibers

Commercially dyed green polyester thread (PES, 10–20 μm diameter) and transparent polypropylene fibers (PP, 50–60 μm diameter) were purchased from a supermarket (Shanghai Qinhe, China). Polymers were verified using a micro-Fourier Transformed Infrared spectroscopy microscope (LUMOS μ-FT-IR, Bruker, Beijing, China) in attenuated total reflectance (ATR) mode (Fig 1A11B1) [9]. Next, strands were cut crosswise with clean micro-scissors (Ted Pella, Redding, CA) into MFs and stored in a clean glass bottle until use. Surface features were imaged by scanning electron microscopy (FEI XL30 SEM-FEG, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) (Fig 1A31B3).

Fig 1. Characteristics of PES and PP microfibers.

Fig 1

Column A pertains to green PES MFs while column B is transparent PP MFs. μ-FT-IR characterized and confirmed polymers in each MF type (A1 and B1). Brightfield images are shown in A2 and B2. Surface structure imaged with SEM is in A3 and B3. Size distributions show PES fibers averaged 350 μm in length (A4) and PP averaged 380 μm long (B4).

A standard curve was produced in order to determine number by mass (mg dry weight (dw)) for each MF type (S1B and S1D Fig, S1 Table). In this way MFs could be weighed and then added directly to tanks during water changes to yield selected concentrations, providing a practical method for MF addition while avoiding loss of MFs that would occur during transfer in a liquid medium. To make the regressions, five gradient masses of each MF type were weighed (mg dw) and then soaked in 10 mL 70% ethanol (EtOH) to disperse (S1A and S1C Fig). Each MF suspension was mixed using a glass Pasteur pipette and 1 mL was filtered through a polycarbonate membrane filter (Millipore TMTP04700, 47 mm diameter and 5 μm pore size) under vacuum and imaged using a Nikon SMZ 1500 stereomicroscope with a Nikon DXM1200 camera and Nikon NIS-Elements 3.10 software (Nikon Instruments Inc., Melville, NY). MFs were counted in three non-overlapping images, and the total number of MFs by weight (mg dw) was calculated. The filtering, imaging, and counting procedures were repeated in triplicate. A linear regression was used to establish mass vs. number of MFs (S1B and S1D Fig).

MF size distribution was determined by measuring the length of approximately 1,000 individual fibers using 50 randomly selected images and ImageJ 1.48 software [35]. 98.0% of PES MFs were < 1000 μm in length and 78.8% were < 500 μm, with an average length of 350 μm (Fig 1A4). 97.3% of PP MFs were < 1000 μm in length and 76.0% were < 500 μm (Fig 1B4), with an average length of 380 μm.

2.3 Preliminary study

A preliminary study was conducted to determine 1) whether aqueous exposures to MFs would result in uptake and 2) how and in what quantities MFs should be used. Adult, 8-month old medaka were randomly selected from our colony. Eight breeding pairs (1 male, 1 female) were placed in 3 L tanks containing 2 L of batch water (0.1% w/v artificial salt (Instant Ocean, Blacksburg, VA) in MilliQ water (Millipore Sigma, Burlington, MA)) that had been mixed and oxygenated with an air stone for at least 12 h prior to use. Tanks were maintained in a dedicated room at 24°C and under a 14:10 light:dark cycle. Fish were acclimated to these conditions for three days. Then, air stones (Saim’s Store, Amazon.com; 14.5×25 mm) were added to each tank and fish further acclimated for three days. In addition to oxygenation, air stones kept MFs mixed and suspended upon addition to tanks. Fish were fed two times per day with 1% body weight Otohime β1 and an equal amount of Artemia nauplii culture. Along with a control, the following concentrations of MFs were tested: 1,000 fibers/L PP, 1,000 fibers/L PES, and 10,000 fibers/L PES. 10,000 fibers/L was chosen as an upper limit based on levels detected in Arctic sea ice (12,000 ± 14,000 particles/L) [36], a laboratory study with zebrafish (Danio rerio) [37], and projected increases in the environment [38]. Each treatment had 2 replicate tanks (2 breeding pairs/treatment), with an exposure time of 21 days.

During feeding times, air stones were temporarily inactivated to ensure that dry food remained on the water surface to allow fish to feed in their accustomed manner. Any MFs stuck to tank walls during the static period were resuspended with a pipette, then food was introduced. Fish were allowed to feed for 5 mins before aeration was resumed. We did not observe preferential binding of MFs to food. Fish were routinely observed daily during feeding- and non-feeding times for alterations in normal behavior (e.g., increased opercular movements, erratic swimming, piping, cowering) that might indicate stress. Eggs were removed from tanks daily by siphoning bottoms of tanks, cleaned and assessed as described below (section 2.5). No changes in fecundity were found among different groups. Every 2–3 days, tanks were siphoned to remove feces and 25% (500 mL) water was removed and replaced with clean batch water. Then, new dry MFs were added by mass to replace those removed using the generated standard curve (S1 Fig). On days 6, 13, and 20, a complete (100%) water change was done, and tanks and air stones were thoroughly cleaned.

Fecal material was collected 24 hrs after a complete water change using a 7.5 mL transfer pipette (VWR) to minimize removal of MF-containing tank water. We did not observe preferential binding of suspended MFs to feces when observed using a stereomicroscope (Nikon SMZ1500). Feces were placed into pre-weighed 1.7 mL Eppendorf tubes (1 tube/tank), centrifuged for 5 min at 5,000 rcf, and supernatant removed. Feces were then digested using hydrogen peroxide (H2O2; 30%, v/v, JT Baker, Avantor, Allentown, PA) at 65ºC for 6 h and then filtered (Millipore TMTP04700) under vacuum, digitally imaged, and counted as described above (section 2.2). The lower concentrations of MFs (1,000/L) had an average of 22.5 PP and 20.5 PES per fish per day, while fish exposed to 10,000 fibers/L had an average of 1002.9 items per fish per day. Accordingly, the higher concentration was selected for use in the definitive study.

After 24 hrs and after 21 d, a single male from each treatment group was euthanized by immersion in an ice water bath (i.e., rapid cooling) until vital signs (e.g., opercular movement, righting equilibrium, fin and muscle movement, and heartbeat) had ceased [39, 40]. Then gill, gut and liver were removed. Excised organs were individually digested using H2O2 (30% v/v) at 65ºC for 24 hrs. Resultant digestates were filtered (Millipore TMTP04700) under vacuum and then examined under a stereomicroscope. PP and PES MFs were restricted to gut digestates.

2.4 Experimental design

Thirty-three breeding pairs, randomly selected from our colony, were moved to the dedicated room (section 2.3) and first evaluated for reproductive status and fecundity by observations over 7 consecutive days; resultant embryos were counted and assessed for normal development and viability. Twenty-seven pairs with the highest and most consistent productivity (e.g., same number of eggs each day) were randomly assigned to treatment groups (control, PES, or PP), with 9 replicate pairs per group. There were no significant differences in egg production and fertilization rate for each group before exposure (Fig 2). Fish were placed in tanks with air stones, acclimated, and fed as described above (section 2.3), followed by the addition of 10,000 fibers/L to each tank (S1 Fig, S1 Table). Exposure duration was 21 days, during which feeding, water changes, and embryo collection followed methods used in the preliminary study. Based on results of the preliminary study, an additional 1,000 MFs per fish per day were added during water replacements to account for MFs bound and removed in fecal material. All individuals were weighed (mg wet weight (ww)) before exposure and once weekly during the experiment. Tank water samples were taken immediately before complete water changes, filtered (0.2μm) to remove MFs, and stored at -80ºC for future chemical analyses to determine presence and concentrations of dyes and other additives.

Fig 2.

Fig 2

Egg production (A) and fertilization rate (B) for control (Cont.), polypropylene (PP), and polyester (PES) MFs groups before and throughout the course of the exposure period. Bars represent means ±SD (n = 9 pairs). Different letters indicate significant differences in fertilization rate (%) comparing time points between different treatment groups, p < 0.05. Pound symbols (#) indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between time points within a treatment group.

2.5 Embryo and fecal collection and analyses

At 7, 14, and 21 days, feces were collected by siphoning bottoms of each tank, imaged under a stereomicroscope and then transferred to pre-weighed 1.7 mL Eppendorf tubes (1 tube/tank). Samples were processed with H2O2 and counted as described above (section 2.3), enabling calculation of MF number and length.

Eggs were collected within 24 h after complete water changes. Before and after feedings, and every 2–3 hrs, deposited eggs were collected with a 7.5 mL transfer pipette. Then, clutches were rolled on moistened paper towels to separate and clean individual eggs before they were transferred to labeled Petri dishes (VWR, Corning) containing batch water [31]. Next, counts were made of fertilized embryos, unfertilized eggs, and non-viable embryos. The latter two were then discarded. Embryos were maintained on an orbital shaker at 60 rpm (Thermo Fisher Scientific) in an incubator at 26°C with a 14:10 light:dark cycle. Embryo mortality, hatching, and development were observed daily [31, 32]. At 14 d post fertilization (dpf), each larva was anesthetized in 150 mg/L tricaine methanesulfonate (MS-222; Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) and total body length was measured.

2.6 Fish sample preparation

After 21 d of exposure, all fish were euthanized via rapid cooling, imaged (Panasonic, HC-X920, Newark, NJ), and weighed (mg ww). Standard length (mm) and girth at pectoral girdle (mm) were measured for each fish using ImageJ. Three breeding pairs (n = 6) from each treatment group were allocated for histology and a ventral midline incision was made from anus to near the pectoral girdle. Then, 10% neutral buffered formalin (10% NBF; VWR) was flushed through the incision using a disposable transfer pipette with extended fine tip (VWR). The pipette was also inserted into the buccal cavity to gently perfuse fixative into buccal cavity, pharynx, branchial cavity and esophagus. This flushing facilitated fixation of deeper tissues. These specimens were placed in 50-mL conical tubes (1 pair/tube) filled with 10% NBF and fixed at room temperature overnight. Then these tubes were moved to 4ºC for storage until time of processing for histology (section 2.7).

Fish of the remaining 6 breeding pairs (n = 12) were dissected, and gill, gut, gonads, and liver excised and weighed (mg ww). For 3 of these pairs (n = 6), gills and gut were fixed for SEM (section 2.8). For the remaining 3 pairs (n = 6), all excised organs were frozen and stored at -80ºC for future chemical analyses of additives.

To evaluate condition of individual fish, the following indices were calculated: coefficient of condition (K), gonadosomatic index (GSI), and hepatosomatic index (HSI) [41, 42] using the following formulae:

K=100,000WbodyL3 (1)
GSI=WgonadWbody×100 (2)
HSI=WliverWbody×100 (3)

where: Wbody = body weight (g ww); L = standard length (mm); Wgonad = gonad (ovaries or testes) weight (g ww); and Wliver = liver weight (g ww).

2.7 Light microscopic analysis

Fixed specimens were processed, sectioned and stained at the Histology Laboratory, Department of Population, Health and Pathobiology, North Carolina State University College of Veterinary Medicine, Raleigh, N.C. First, fixed specimens were decalcified in 10% formic acid for 48 h and washed with water. In an automated tissue processor (Thermo Shandon Path Centre, Grand Island, NY), a graded series of EtOH solutions was used for dehydration and then Clear-Rite 3 (Richard Allen Scientific, Kalamazoo, MI) used for clearing. Specimens were then embedded in paraffin and oriented in left lateral recumbency, with one breeding pair in each block. 5 μm thick, step sections were cut with a Leica 2135 rotary microtome (Leica Biosystems Inc., Buffalo Grove, IL) and mounted on glass histological slides. Such orientation and embedment assured an average of 8 sections per pair of fish, yielding repeated views of each major organ in parasagittal planes. Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained sections were used for general tissue survey. Alcian Blue and Periodic Acid Schiff (AB-PAS) stained one slide per pair for mucus. All slides were examined and imaged with a compound light microscope (Nikon E600, Nikon Instruments, Inc., Melville, NY). The Penn State Zebrafish Bio-Atlas [43] was consulted and used for comparison.

Because fewer than expected MFs were observed during dissections or in histologic sections of branchial chamber and gill structures, we conducted an additional exposure to determine passage of MFs through branchial chambers. One new pair per treatment was placed in tanks and acclimated as described above (section 2.3). Fish were exposed to 10,000 fibers/L for 48 hrs, euthanized via rapid cooling, and then the operculum was carefully removed to image underlying gill filaments with a stereomicroscope. Next, approximately 2 mL fluid containing 10,000 fibers/L was gently flushed into the buccal cavity near the oral flaps and observations made of their passage through or around gills. Finally, gills were removed and imaged under a stereomicroscope (Fig 5A and 5B).

Fig 5. SEM of gills after 21 days of exposure.

Fig 5

0 (Control; A-C), PES (D-F), or PP (G-I) MFs. (A, D, G) gill filaments, only a portion of one gill raker may be observed in control figure (A). (B) Gill arch. (E) Gill raker. (C, F, I) Magnification of gill arch showing mucous cells indicated by white arrows. (G) Double white arrow indicates mucous secretion as a sheet; (H) Magnification of the filament tip with arrowhead to outgrowth and showing fusion of distal tips of adjacent primary lamellae (double white arrow). ga, gill arch; gf, gill filament; gr, gill raker.

2.8 Scanning electron microscopic analysis

All SEM fixation and processing were adapted from published procedures [44]. Briefly, gills (arches with rakers and filaments attached) and gut were fixed overnight at 4ºC in 2.5% glutaraldehyde (Electron Microscopy Sciences, Hatfield, PA) buffered with a cacodylate-sucrose solution (0.1 mol L-1 sodium cacodylate and 0.1 mol L-1 sucrose, pH 7.6). Using a sterile, single-edged razor blade, transverse sections (2–4 mm) were cut from the fore-, mid-, and hindgut of each fish in order to visualize mucosal surfaces of folds. Just prior to preparation for SEM, samples were washed in 0.1 M phosphate buffered-sucrose solution for 20 min and dehydrated using an EtOH series (30%, 50%, 70%, 90%, 100%, 100%; 15 min each). Organs were then transferred through an amyl acetate (Electron Microscopy Sciences) series (amyl acetate: EtOH::1:3, amyl acetate:EtOH:: 3:1 and then two changes of l00% amyl acetate; 15 min each). Gills were critical point dried (LADD, Williston, VT) and gut samples were dried with hexamethyldisilazane (HMDS, Electron Microscopy Sciences; three changes of l00% HMDS, 10 min each).

Processed samples were placed on carbon tape (Electron Microscopy Sciences) affixed to a pin stub (12.7 × 8 mm, Ted Pella Redding, CA) and sputter-coated with gold using a Denton Desk IV (Denton Vacuum, Moorestown, NJ). To reduce charging from settling of gold, gut samples were sputter coated immediately prior to imaging. All samples were observed using a SEM with a spot size of 3 and an accelerating voltage of 15–20 kV and imaged with Scandium software (ResAlta, Golden, CO).

2.9 Statistical analyses

Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 22.0 (IBM Armonk, NY) software and Origin 9.0 (OriginLab Corporation, Northampton, MA) software. Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests were performed to test for normality, and a Levene test was used for homogeneity of variance. Data were not normally distributed and had unequal variance; therefore, non-parametric tests were used. Data for quantities of MFs, number of embryos, adult body weight, and larval body length had factors for time as well as treatment. Therefore, a Mann-Whitney U-test was used to determine differences between time points within a treatment group, and a Wilcoxon test was used to test differences between treatment groups within a time point. The Wilcoxon test was also used to determine differences in K (n = 18), GSI (n = 6 females, 6 males), HSI (n = 6 females, 6 males), adult body weight before and after exposure, embryo mortality, hatching, and developmental endpoints. A p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1 Medaka condition

All fish survived the exposure period and no change in body weight of female fish occurred. Body weight of males in all groups was significantly increased (S2B Fig, p = 0.011 for control and PES-exposed males, p = 0.008 for PP-exposed males). There were no significant differences in fish condition assessment indices of either sex including K, HSI, or GSI among treatment groups (S2 Table).

3.2 Fecundity and embryo development

Egg production and fertilization success following the first week of exposure did not differ from results prior to exposure (Fig 2). During the second week of exposure, fertilization rate in PES-exposed pairs was greater than other groups (Fig 2B). Females exposed to PP MFs produced more eggs over the course of the experiment, becoming significantly higher than before exposure values by the last week (Fig 2A, p = 0.013). Their mates were able to successfully fertilize this greater number of eggs (Fig 2B, p = 0.017). There were no statistical differences in mortality, development, or hatching success for embryos collected at days 7, 14 or 21 compared to controls (S3 and S4 Figs). Additionally, body lengths of larvae after hatch were the same between control and treatment groups (S5 Fig). These results were consistent with- or better than those observed in routine repeated assessments of our breeding colony.

3.3 Fecal MFs abundance

No MFs were found in feces of control fish. MF-laden feces in exposed fish provided quantitative evidence of ingestion and egestion (Fig 3). The abundance of PP MFs ranged from 23 to 447 items per fish per day (average: 157 ± 105 items/fish/day). Interestingly, PP MF numerical density was significantly higher at day 21 (p = 0.031 for day 7 vs. day 21, p = 0.042 for day 14 vs. day 21; Fig 3D). PES MF abundance ranged from 340 to 3097 items/fish/day (average: 1367 ± 819 items/fish/day, Fig 3D). Excretion of PES MFs was significantly greater than that of all PP MFs (p<0.001, Fig 3D) but did not change over time.

Fig 3. Egestion of MFs.

Fig 3

Images of feces from medaka exposed to control (A), transparent PP MFs (B), or green PES MFs (C). White arrows point to fibers. MF abundances on day 7, 14, and 21 are represented in the histogram (D). MF abundances are expressed as mean ±SD (n = 9 pairs). Different letters indicate significant differences in MF abundances between time points within a treatment group (Wilcoxon test, p < 0.05). Asterisks (***) indicate significant difference between treatment groups (Mann-Whitney U-test, p < 0.001).

3.4 Histological changes

Light micrographs of gills from individuals exposed to PES MFs for 48 hrs showed aneurysms along lamellae (Fig 4B). We also observed that MFs were able to pass through branchial chamber but did not become entangled in gill filaments (Fig 4C and S6G Fig). This finding was in line with that observed in histological sections (Fig 4E) after 21 d of exposure. PES MFs were present in buccal cavity, on pharyngeal mucosa near teeth, in branchial cavity, and on gut folds (S6D–S6H Fig). Green dye facilitated recognition of PES MFs in sections, while PP MFs were only identified in AB-PAS stained sections as negatively stained, clear spaces (S6I Fig) identical in diameter to PP MFs observed in initial MF characterizations.

Fig 4. Gill alterations following MF exposure.

Fig 4

Light micrographs of gills from control (A) and PES-exposed (B) medaka after 2 days of exposure; white arrow indicates aneurysms, black arrow indicates normal lamellar outgrowths, arrowheads indicate PES MFs in the branchial cavity (C). H&E stained histological sections of gills from the adult medaka exposed to 0 (D), PES (E-G, I), or PP (H) MFs for 21 days. (E) Black arrows under low and high magnifications of the filaments indicate aneurysms. (F) Arrowheads indicate swelling between deep layers of the operculum associated with the wall of the branchial chamber and arrows show pushing of inner opercular epithelium against gill primary lamellae, visible in more detail in high magnification inset. (G) Arrow indicates epithelial lifting in the secondary lamellae. (H) Arrows indicate fusion of secondary lamellae. (I) Arrow indicates epithelial alterations of the secondary lamellae. ga, gill arch; gr, gill raker.

Medaka branchial cavity and gills showed alterations upon exposure to PES and PP MFs. The wall of branchial cavity covering medial aspect of operculae presented as a rounded balloon-shaped structure under low magnification (Fig 4F). This altered inner opercular membrane appeared to push against gill filaments resulting in deformation of the most rostral primary and secondary lamellae (Fig 4F). This swelling occurred in half of the fish in each MF treatment. An additional site of swelling was beneath the epithelium of the caudal wall of the branchial chamber (Fig 4F). While not as large, it also made contact with primary lamellae. Other alterations were gill specific including aneurysms, epithelial lifting with separation from underlying structures in inter-secondary lamellar spaces, partial and complete lamellar fusion, and erosion of epithelium from secondary lamellae (Fig 4E–4I). Petechiae (i.e., small spots of hemorrhage) and epithelial lifting were found in gills of 50% of control fish, but were minor in size and extent, with rare petechiae in different positions along the gill filament. Conversely, aneurysms and epithelial lifting occurred in gills of 67% of PES-treated and 83% of PP-treated fish and were numerous and mainly concentrated along water outflow tracts (i.e., passages between adjacent gill arches and their associated primary lamellae) (Fig 4E). Fusion of secondary lamellae did not occur in controls, but was observed in MF-treated fish, most frequently (67%) after PP exposure and less so after PES exposure (33%) (Figs 4H and 5H).

H&E staining showed no alterations in internal organs (liver, kidney, thyroid, heart, spleen, pancreas, and gonads) of exposed individuals. AB-PAS stained sections of control revealed mucus in gut lumen and in goblet cells (S7A and S7B Fig). Both PES and PP groups revealed large amounts of mucus in foregut lumen and numerous, enlarged goblet cells (S7C–S7F Fig). Such alterations were absent in mid- and hindgut. No evidence was seen for abrasions, erosion, or other alterations in any segment of gut.

3.5 Surficial observations

SEM of control gills showed intact filaments with uniform inter-lamellar spaces (Fig 5A), smooth and intact surfaces of gill arches and rakers (Fig 5B), and mucous cells with minimal mucus production (Fig 5C). PES-exposed fish exhibited surface erosion of gill filaments and arches (Fig 5D and 5E). Primary lamellar tips were fused and enhanced terminal outgrowths of secondary lamellae were seen in one of three PP-exposed fish (Fig 5H). In both treatment groups, increased mucous production was observed as strands and sheets over filaments (Fig 5D and 5G) and rakers (Fig 5E). Increased output from individual mucous cells (Fig 5F, 5I) was also observed in both treatment groups.

SEM of control gut revealed regular, elongated enterocytes and pores for mucus secretion in and on folds of fore-, mid-, and hindgut (Fig 6A and 6B). Increased mucus was observed in foregut of PES exposed fish, but no other changes were seen (Fig 6C). Rarely, PES MFs were found trapped in the folds (Fig 6D), but most MFs were oriented longitudinally and were encased in food, mucus, and waste materials within the lumen (Fig 6E). Interestingly, grooves, that were not observed in pristine fibers (Fig 1B3), were found on surfaces of PP MFs in the hindgut (Fig 6F).

Fig 6. SEM of cross sections of gut.

Fig 6

(A) Surface epithelium of foregut from a control fish with white arrows marking pores for mucous secretion; (B) Transverse section of hindgut from control fish; (C) Surface epithelium of foregut from PES-exposed fish, black arrowhead indicates apical tips of enterocyte, white arrow indicates mucus secretion; (D) Low magnification of foregut from PES-exposed fish with fiber entangled in folds (white arrowhead); (E) Low magnification of hindgut from PES-exposed fish with fibers (white arrowhead) encased in digesta; (F) High magnification of PP in hindgut showing elongated grooves on their surfaces.

4. Discussion

This study addressed chronic effects of two types of MFs on adult medaka under controlled laboratory conditions. A thorough assessment was made of MF entry, egress, and interaction with tissues as they passed through head gut, branchial chamber, and digestive system. While there are reports for several types of plastics associated with the above sites, there are little to no detailed assessments with respect to MFs.

4.1 Body condition

MFs exposure did not affect medaka body condition or indices over the 21 d suggesting no decreases in food intake or nutrition. Body weight of males in all groups, including control, increased without corresponding increases in K, suggesting males grew larger overall. Because breeding pairs were housed in relatively large tanks with ample diet, it is possible that males were less active in that they did not have to compete for females. Growth and weight as endpoints of microplastics exposure vary, with some fish showing reductions [e.g., 24, 45, 46] and others no changes [e.g., 37, 47]. As might be expected, this variation seems to be the result of several factors including species, life stage, exposure duration, microplastic size and polymer.

4.2 Fecundity

The effects of microplastics on reproduction have been investigated in various invertebrate species such as oysters, water fleas, and cnidarians [4850]. Such studies typically report decreased reproductive output (e.g., oocyte number, fertilization rate) [49, 50]. However, little data exists on reproductive effects of microplastics in fish. In our study, medaka exposed to PP MFs had a significant increase in egg production and associated fertilization rate over time. Changes in egg number are a common biomarker of endocrine disruption in fish [51, 52]. Studies of single plasticizers have reported biological effects at ng/L or μg/L concentrations [53], and even low doses can disrupt endocrine systems [54]. No increases were observed in control fish and the MFs did not leave the digestive tract. Therefore, it is plausible that additives leached from MFs in the digestive tract and/or while in the water column. Turbulence such as that created by the air stones for MF mixing in the present study may have increased this additive leaching in water [55].

A hazardous substance that remains within plastic has a lower risk; it needs to be leached/released/desorbed for toxicity to occur [56]. This can occur in all phases of a plastic’s life cycle, in a variety of media, and can depend on the composition of non-polymeric substances [56]. However, determination of type and magnitude of leaching is complex as it depends on a multitude of factors [56]. There is also a lack of data about the actual content of additives in textiles in the common market, primarily due to difficulties in obtaining information from producers on substances used during manufacturing [11].

Rochman et al. [57] exposed adult medaka to polyethylene (PE) microplastics and found changes in estrogen receptor mediated gene expression and altered testicular histopathology, suggesting endocrine system function was affected. In marine medaka (Oryzias melastigma), the additive di-(2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate (DEHP) and its active metabolite mono(2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate (MEHP) disrupted endocrine function and accelerated spawning start time and decreased fecundity in a sex-specific manner [58]. In contrast, we observed an increase in female fecundity upon exposure to PP MFs. Various additives (e.g., bisphenol A (BPA)) have been shown to produce estrogenic effects, including the induction of vitellogenin and may be an androgen receptor agonist [see review in 59]. Benzotriazoles (BTris), abundant in clothing textiles, are persistent in the environment and are known to have bioaccumulative properties [11]. Following aqueous exposure to BTris (0.01–1 mg/L) for 4 or 35 days, adult marine medaka had induced vitellogenin (VTG) gene expression in liver, gills, and gut of both sexes, down-regulated CYP1A1 gene expression levels in liver and gut, and induced CYP19a expression in ovaries [60]. Those results indicate BTris is an endocrine disruptor in that VTG production is estrogen dependent, many estrogenic chemicals have been reported to inhibit CYP1A1, and CYP19a is involved the control of various physiological functions of estrogens [60].The pristine MFs, stored tissues and tank water from our study are currently undergoing chemical analysis to assess the extent to which leaching may have occurred. Only after this analysis will we be able to directly link effects to specific chemicals.

It should be noted that most exposure studies have used pristine microspheres or fragments. There are knowledge gaps as to how MFs behave in the environment [61]. Several dyes and chemicals used in the manufacture of textiles have been shown to be acutely toxic [13, 15] or carcinogenic [62]. The ability of plastics to interact with various compounds in the environment is appearing with increasing frequency in the literature. Adding to the complexity of MF chemistry is predicting and interpreting sorption of metals, flame retardants, organic pollutants, and other compounds in the environment [6367]. Additionally, organic molecules sorb to plastics with increasing lipophilicity [68, 69], a property with potentially large biological implications. Once in the environment and following ingestion, additives can leach [55] and any sorbed compounds can desorb [8, 70] during passage through the digestive tract. Under this scenario, effects in addition to those of reproduction may be expected. Teasing apart effects of sorbed contaminants in addition to mechanical damages caused by particles and physiological changes from plastic additives is extremely complex. For this reason, we emphasize the need to include pristine plastic controls in future studies investigating contaminants sorbed in the environment.

4.3 MF accumulation

In both the preliminary and formal experiments, PES and PP MFs were evident and quantifiable in gut and feces. We expected MFs to become entangled in gill filaments, particularly in the outgrowths of secondary lamellae unique to medaka [34]. However, in the absence of behavioral changes and MFs in gills during dissection, their passage through the branchial chamber was unclear. The subsequent flushing of MF solution into mouth cavity verified that MFs indeed passed through the branchial chamber and over gills but did not become entwined around them. Localizing MFs in histological sections supported these observations.

In the few laboratory studies of MFs in fish, only one type of MF polymer was studied. We found interesting differences in egestion based on the type of MF. Fish excreted an overall greater number of PES MFs than PP MFs. Amounts of PES egested did not change over time, but while excreted PP MFs overall were less, number did increase over time. This lesser abundance of PP relative to PES MFs might be explained by their density. Density of plastic particles determines location in the water column and affects bioavailability [71]. Although MFs were mixed via air stones, some separated within the water column. Low-density PP floated at the surface and stuck to tank walls while higher-density PES MFs settled on the tank bottoms. It is possible that some MFs may have adhered to feces, increasing measured values. However, preliminary observations did not show MFs in water collected with feces. Medaka have an upturned mouth that allows for feeding at the water’s surface [32] and likely ingest floating PP MFs along with their dry diet. When surface food has been exhausted, medaka will search the bottom of tanks for sunken food particles, and this is probably when they ingested additional PES MFs. Normal swimming behavior as well as foraging for Artemia nauplii occurs mid-water column, where contact with suspended MFs occurred. It was also possible that MF physical characteristics were a critical determinant in ingestion. While similar in length, PP were larger in diameter (50–60 μm) than PES MFs (10–20 μm). Such selectivity in size and/or shape has been reported in goldfish found to chew then expel fragments but to ingest and retain fibers [24].

4.4 Gills and branchial chamber

Responses to MFs were most severe along outflow pathways over gills. The morphological alterations we observed are common symptoms of toxic effects in fishes resulting from a variety of aquatic pollutants and are routinely secondary to toxic interaction with specific transport steps or membrane-bound receptors [25, 72].

Typically overlooked are the margins of the branchial chamber. Within the branchial chamber, we observed swollen spaces beneath the inner opercular epithelium, probably arising from interactions with MFs as water followed the inner wall of the operculum before exiting the chamber. Such an effect may disrupt or inhibit osmoregulation by the inner opercular membrane, specifically ion transport and kinetics of its chloride cells [73, 74]. This is the first report of such separation of the inner opercular epithelium from deeper wall structures. Such swellings possibly reduced the volume of the branchial chamber and inhibited water flow. Additionally, we observed this lifting to deform primary and secondary lamellae, likely impairing respiration, and resulting in damage.

Tissue and cellular effects resulting from microplastic exposure have also received very little attention. Results of our SEM and histological investigations showed acute responses including epithelial lifting, increased mucus production, and eroded epithelium as well as chronic responses including erosions on surfaces of gill arches, lamellar aneurysms, and fusion of primary and secondary lamellae [7577]. Separation of epithelium from the basal membrane is a symptom of disorders of osmoregulation and can act as a protective mechanism to increase distance from toxicants [78], but increased distance also impairs oxygen uptake [72]. Likewise, fusion of lamellae causes an overall reduction in surface area for gas exchange [79]. Increased mucus production also functions as a barrier against foreign substances (chemical, physical, or biological) [75, 76], forming an important part of the innate immune system [76]. While mucus production is considered a defense mechanism, any change that decreases filament surface area or increases distance for gaseous exchange between external environment and blood is regarded as potentially harmful to host respiration [27]. We found rare petechiae in control fish but treated individuals had pronounced and numerous aneurysms. Petechiae that are minor in size and extent, as seen in controls, are reversible changes [72, 80]. Lamellar aneurysms and complete lamellar fusions are severe pathologies [72, 81]. Lamellar aneurysms result in damage and loss of pillar cells in these areas result in the fusion of capillaries within secondary lamellae, which causes their dilation and congestion with blood [75]. Causative factors of gill aneurysms include mechanical injuries or a long list of toxicants that impair respiration [75, 82, 83].

The changes we observed may have been from mechanical damage, responses to leached additives, or a combination of the two. The textile industry employs numerous synthetic dyes (>10,000), some of which are non-biodegradable and carcinogenic [84]. For example, benzothiazoles (BTs), found in many textiles [11], induced gill alterations including epithelial lifting, epithelial hypertrophy, and fusion of secondary lamellae sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) larvae [85]. However, there are few studies of this nature that have investigated physical effects of leached additives.

We considered the possibility of recovery from these phenotypic traits should fish be moved to clean water. Recovery of aneurysms is somewhat controversial [81]. Severe changes such as these are often irreversible even when water quality improves [72, 80]. That said, there are some reports of recovery after transfer to clean water. For example, Hypostomus francisci (a Brazillian catfish sp.) collected from a polluted river exhibited epithelial hypertrophy and lifting, lamellar fusion, aneurysms, hyperemia, and vascular congestion [81]. While recovery was slow after placement in clean water, full recovery of lamellar aneurysms occurred after 30 days and apoptosis was stimulated to promote gill structure recovery [81]. In a laboratory study, aneurysms developed on tips of primary lamellae of Prochilodus scrofa (a tropical teleost fish) exposed to copper for 96 hrs, with additional damage in the form of epithelial lifting, cell swelling, and proliferation of pavement, chloride, and mucous cells [86]. Again, recovery was slow after transfer to clean water (30–45 days), but much of this damage was reversible [86]. Such recovery studies have not been conducted for microplastics.

4.5 Gut

Microfibers are pervasive in digestive tracts of various wild caught fish [21, 24, 87, 88]. In the laboratory, Grigorakis et al. [23] determined retention times for MFs to be fairly low. Our study found MFs were primarily oriented longitudinally within lumina of all gut regions likely favoring rapid passage. Because medaka are agastric teleosts, our examinations were done in three intestinal segments following the description of medaka gut [33]. SEM and AB-PAS stained sections of exposed individuals showed that mucous cells and mucus production increased, primarily in foregut. MFs were encapsulated within luminal mucus and digesta throughout the gut. We hypothesize that this lubricated the gut wall to reduce abrasion and was protective in that it reduced contact with luminal epithelium, facilitating MF passage and excretion [89]. Correspondingly, H&E stained sections showed no significant lesions in intestinal segments of exposed fish.

Interestingly, SEM showed grooves or scratches on the surface of PP fibers in the hindgut lumen. We initially considered that these could be explained on the basis of tooth action during mastication; however, MFs in foregut showed no surficial alterations. We regard contraction of circular and longitudinal muscles of gut wall, as factors increasing contact between MFs and adjacent material of smaller diameter, as the most likely explanation. The formation of such grooves on MFs might release smaller particles from the increased surface area, both of which could lead to enhanced release of fiber additives and subsequent toxicity. We do not believe a significant amount of MF breakage occurred during ingestion and passage based on the finding that MFs recovered from feces did not differ in length from those at initiation of exposure.

5 Conclusion

While several field studies report MFs to account for the majority of microplastics both in environmental media and biota, there is a lack of laboratory studies. In adult medaka, we examined multiple levels of biological organization following chronic, aqueous exposure to two types of MFs. Large numbers of MFs were shown to pass through both branchial chamber and gut. Responses in cells and tissues led us to conclude that MFs are potentially harmful to fish and that MF type is an important consideration in toxicity. The branchial chamber, in particular, was the site of both acute and chronic responses. Structural alterations of inner opercular membrane, rakers, and primary- and secondary lamellae were evidence of damage. If presented with other challenges (e.g., predators, hypoxia, competition with other males for spawning), these changes would likely impact survival. Effects observed in other organs (e.g., fecundity) suggest a possible interaction with substances leaching from MFs in gut. Use of a small laboratory model fish has enabled detailed, high resolution investigations of various organs and tissues. We are currently analyzing water and tissue samples generated from this study to answer questions of chemical contributions to toxicity.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Standard curves.

Different concentrations of PP (A) and PES (C) MFs dispersed in 10 mL 70% ethanol. Standard curves of PP (B) and PES (D) MFs.

(DOCX)

S2 Fig

Body weights of female (A) and male (B) medaka before (light grey bars) and after exposure (dark grey bars). Medaka were exposed to 0 (Control), PP, or PES MFs for 21 days (n = 18). Data are presented as means ±SD. Mann-Whitney U-test and Wilcoxon tests were used to determine the differences in the body weight of medaka among different treatment groups and between before and after exposure, respectively. # p < 0.05, ## p < 0.01.

(DOCX)

S3 Fig. Embryo survival and hatching.

Survival rate (A-C) and hatching percent (D-F) of embryos collected at day 7 (A, D), 14 (B, E) and 21 (C, F). Data are presented as means, n = 5–9 tanks. PP, Polypropylene MFs; PES, Polyester MFs.

(DOCX)

S4 Fig

Malformation rates of larvae at 14 days post fertilization (dpf) from control, PP, and polyester PES MFs for 7 (A), 14 (B) and 21 (C) days. Data are presented as medians, n = 5–9 tanks.

(DOCX)

S5 Fig. Body lengths of larvae.

Body length at 14 days post fertilization (dpf) larvae exposed to MFs for 14 and 21 days. Data are presented as medians ± SD, n = 5–9 tanks.

(DOCX)

S6 Fig. Histological micrographs of MF distribution in medaka.

H&E stained sections of mouth (A), buccal cavity (B) and pharynx near teeth (C) from control fish. H&E stained sections of mouth (D), buccal cavity with high magnification inset of MF (E), pharynx near teeth with high magnification inset of MF (F), gill filaments with high magnification inset of MF in direct contact with outgrowths on secondary lamella (G) and gut (H) from PES-exposed fish. AB-PAS stained sections of gut (I) from PP-exposed fish with wall of gut at bottom of field and gut lumen occupying middle to upper portions of field; PP MFs in negatively stained, clear spaces signifying former presence of MFs. Low and high magnification images with black arrows indicate MFs.

(DOCX)

S7 Fig

AB-PAS stained histological sections in foregut after 21-day exposure to 0 (control; A-B), PES (C-D), or PP (E-F) MFs. (B, D, F) The higher magnification views of areas in the foregut indicated by squares in A, C, and D. Black arrows indicate goblet cells.

(DOCX)

S1 Table. Test concentrations.

Mass concentration (mg/L) of PP and PES MFs at the test concentration of 10,000 microfibers/L used for this study.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Measurements of adult fish exposed to MFs for 21 days.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank J. Mac Law at NC State University College of Veterinary Medicine for his consultation on morphological alterations. We would also like to thank Michelle Plue for her consultation on scanning electron microscopy and Mei Zhu for her assistance during the experiment.

Data Availability

Data are held in a public repository. The raw data set file is available from the Figshare database (doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.10031471). All other data and figures are in the manuscript and its Supporting Information file.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by grants from China Scholarship Council ([2017]3109) to Lingling Hu. Sample prep and imaging for scanning electron microscopy was performed at the Duke University Shared Materials Instrumentation Facility (SMIF), a member of the North Carolina Research Triangle Nanotechnology Network (RTNN), which is supported by the National Science Foundation (Grant ECCS-1542015) as part of the National Nanotechnology Coordinated Infrastructure (NNCI).

References

  • 1.Galgani F, Hanke G, Maes T. Global distribution, composition and abundance of marine litter In: Bergmann M, Gutow L, Klages M, editors. Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2015. p. 29–56. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Barrows APW, Cathey SE, Petersen CW. Marine environment microfiber contamination: Global patterns and the diversity of microparticle origins. Environ Pollut. 2018;237:275–84. 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.02.062 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Carr SA. Sources and dispersive modes of micro-fibers in the environment. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 2017;13(3):466–9. 10.1002/ieam.1916 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Browne MA, Crump P, Niven SJ, Teuten E, Tonkin A, Galloway T, et al. Accumulation of microplastic on shorelines woldwide: sources and sinks. Environmental Science & Technology. 2011;45(21):9175–9. 10.1021/es201811s [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Dris R, Gasperi J, Saad M, Mirande C, Tassin B. Synthetic fibers in atmospheric fallout: A source of microplastics in the environment? Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2016;104(1):290–3. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.01.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Dris R, Gasperi J, Rocher V, Tassin B. Synthetic and non-synthetic anthropogenic fibers in a river under the impact of Paris Megacity: Sampling methodological aspects and flux estimations. Science of The Total Environment. 2018;618:157–64. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Li X, Chen L, Mei Q, Dong B, Dai X, Ding G, et al. Microplastics in sewage sludge from the wastewater treatment plants in China. Water Research. 2018;142:75–85. 10.1016/j.watres.2018.05.034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Anbumani S, Kakkar P. Ecotoxicological effects of microplastics on biota: a review. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2018;25(15):14373–96. 10.1007/s11356-018-1999-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hu L, Chernick M, Hinton DE, Shi H. Microplastics in small waterbodies and tadpoles from Yangtze River Delta, China. Environmental Science & Technology. 2018;52(15):8885–93. Epub 2018/07/24. 10.1021/acs.est.8b02279 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Cesa FS, Turra A, Baruque-Ramos J. Synthetic fibers as microplastics in the marine environment: A review from textile perspective with a focus on domestic washings. Science of The Total Environment. 2017;598:1116–29. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.172 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Avagyan R, Luongo G, Thorsén G, Östman C. Benzothiazole, benzotriazole, and their derivates in clothing textiles—a potential source of environmental pollutants and human exposure. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2015;22(8):5842–9. 10.1007/s11356-014-3691-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Brigden K, Santillo D, Johnston P. Nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs) in textile products, and their release through laundering. Technical Report. Exeter, UK: Greenpeace Research Laboratories, 2012 01/2012 Contract No.: Technical Report 01/2012.
  • 13.Athira N, Jaya DS. The use of fish biomarkers for assessing textile effluent contamination of aquatic ecosystems: a review. Nature Environment and Pollution Technology. 2018;17(1):25–34. . [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hermabessiere L, Dehaut A, Paul-Pont I, Lacroix C, Jezequel R, Soudant P, et al. Occurrence and effects of plastic additives on marine environments and organisms: A review. Chemosphere. 2017;182:781–93. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.05.096 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Selvaraj D, Leena R, Kamal D. Toxicological and histopathological impacts of textile dyeing industry effluent on a selected teleost fish Poecilia reticulata. Asian Journal of Pharmacology and Toxicology. 2015;3(10):26–30. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.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;231:123–33. 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.07.103 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Lusher AL, Hernandez-Milian G, O'Brien J, Berrow S, O'Connor I, Officer R. Microplastic and macroplastic ingestion by a deep diving, oceanic cetacean: The True's beaked whale Mesoplodon mirus. Environmental Pollution. 2015;199:185–91. 10.1016/j.envpol.2015.01.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lusher AL, Welden NA, Sobral P, Cole M. Sampling, isolating and identifying microplastics ingested by fish and invertebrates. Analytical Methods. 2017;9(9):1346–60. 10.1039/C6AY02415G [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Wesch C, Bredimus K, Paulus M, Klein R. Towards the suitable monitoring of ingestion of microplastics by marine biota: A review. Environmental Pollution. 2016;218:1200–8. 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.08.076 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Halstead JE, Smith JA, Carter EA, Lay PA, Johnston EL. Assessment tools for microplastics and natural fibres ingested by fish in an urbanised estuary. Environmental Pollution. 2018;234:552–61. 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.11.085 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Jabeen K, Su L, Li J, Yang D, Tong C, Mu J, et al. Microplastics and mesoplastics in fish from coastal and fresh waters of China. Environmental Pollution. 2017;221:141–9. 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.11.055 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Rochman CM, Tahir A, Williams SL, Baxa DV, Lam R, Miller JT, et al. Anthropogenic debris in seafood: Plastic debris and fibers from textiles in fish and bivalves sold for human consumption. Scientific Reports. 2015;5:14340 10.1038/srep14340 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Grigorakis S, Mason SA, Drouillard KG. Determination of the gut retention of plastic microbeads and microfibers in goldfish (Carassius auratus). Chemosphere. 2017;169:233–8. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.11.055 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Jabeen K, Li B, Chen Q, Su L, Wu C, Hollert H, et al. Effects of virgin microplastics on goldfish (Carassius auratus). Chemosphere. 2018;213:323–32. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.09.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Evans DH. The fish gill: Site of action and model for toxic effects of environmental pollutants. Environ Health Perspect. 1987;71:47–58. 10.1289/ehp.877147 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Sundh H, Sundell KS. Environmental impacts on fish mucosa In: Beck BH, Peatman E, editors. Mucosal Health in Aquaculture. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 2015. p. 171–97. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Evans DH, Piermarini PM, Choe KP. The multifunctional fish gill: Dominant site of gas exchange, osmoregulation, acid-base regulation, and excretion of nitrogenous waste. Physiological Reviews. 2005;85(1):97–177. 10.1152/physrev.00050.2003 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Takeda H. Draft genome of the medaka fish: a comprehensive resource for medaka developmental genetics and vertebrate evolutionary biology. Dev Growth Differ. 2008;50 Suppl 1:S157–66. 10.1111/j.1440-169X.2008.00992.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Shima A, Mitani H. Medaka as a research organism: Past, present and future. Mechanisms of Development. 2004;121(7–8):599–604. 10.1016/j.mod.2004.03.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Wittbrodt J, Shima A, Schartl M. Medaka—a model organism from the far east. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2002;3(1):53–64. 10.1038/nrg704 ; 11823791. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Iwamatsu T. Stages of normal development in the medaka Oryzias latipes. Mechanisms of Development. 2004;121(7–8):605–18. 10.1016/j.mod.2004.03.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Kinoshita M, Murata K, Naruse K, Tanaka M. Medaka: Biology, management, and experimental protocols. Singapore: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Aghaallaei N, Gruhl F, Schaefer CQ, Wernet T, Weinhardt V, Centanin L, et al. Identification, visualization and clonal analysis of intestinal stem cells in fish. Development. 2016;143(19):3470–80. 10.1242/dev.134098 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Leguen I. Gills of the medaka (Oryzias latipes): A scanning electron microscopy study. J Morphol. 2018;279(1):97–108. 10.1002/jmor.20757 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Rasband WS. ImageJ 1.52a. Bethesda, Maryland, USA. http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/: U. S. National Institutes of Health; 2018.
  • 36.Peeken I, Primpke S, Beyer B, Gütermann J, Katlein C, Krumpen T, et al. Arctic sea ice is an important temporal sink and means of transport for microplastic. Nature Communications. 2018;9(1):1505 10.1038/s41467-018-03825-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Karami A, Groman DB, Wilson SP, Ismail P, Neela VK. Biomarker responses in zebrafish (Danio rerio) larvae exposed to pristine low-density polyethylene fragments. Environmental Pollution. 2017;223(Supplement C):466–75. 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.01.047 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Geyer R, Jambeck JR, Law KL. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Science Advances. 2017;3(7). 10.1126/sciadv.1700782 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Matthews M, Varga ZM. Anesthesia and Euthanasia in Zebrafish. Ilar J. 2012;53(2):192–204. 10.1093/ilar.53.2.192 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Leary SL, Underwood W, Anthony R, Cartner S, Corey D, Grandin T, et al. , editors. AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals: 2013 Edition. 2013: American Veterinary Medical Association, Schaumburg, IL. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Froese R. Cube law, condition factor and weight–length relationships: history, meta-analysis and recommendations. 2006;22(4):241–53. 10.1111/j.1439-0426.2006.00805.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Ma T, Wan X, Huang Q, Wang Z, Liu J. Biomarker responses and reproductive toxicity of the effluent from a Chinese large sewage treatment plant in Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes). Chemosphere. 2005;59(2):281–8. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2004.11.033 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Cheng KC. Bio-Atlas: NIH grant 5R24 RR01744, Jake Gittlen Cancer Research Foundation, and PA Tobacco Settlement Fund; 2016 [cited 2018 8/24/2018]. Available from: http://zfatlas.psu.edu/.
  • 44.Dykstra MJ, Reuss LE. Biological electron microscopy: theory, techniques, and troubleshooting 2nd ed New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers; 2011. 534 p. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Yin L, Chen B, Xia B, Shi X, Qu K. Polystyrene microplastics alter the behavior, energy reserve and nutritional composition of marine jacopever (Sebastes schlegelii). Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2018;360:97–105. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.07.110 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Critchell K, Hoogenboom MO. Effects of microplastic exposure on the body condition and behaviour of planktivorous reef fish (Acanthochromis polyacanthus). PLOS ONE. 2018;13(3):e0193308 10.1371/journal.pone.0193308 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Jovanović B, Gökdağ K, Güven O, Emre Y, Whitley EM, Kideys AE. Virgin microplastics are not causing imminent harm to fish after dietary exposure. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2018;130:123–31. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.03.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Murphy F, Quinn B. The effects of microplastic on freshwater Hydra attenuata feeding, morphology & reproduction. Environmental Pollution. 2018;234:487–94. 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.11.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Sussarellu R, Suquet M, Thomas Y, Lambert C, Fabioux C, Pernet MEJ, et al. Oyster reproduction is affected by exposure to polystyrene microplastics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2016;113(9):2430–5. 10.1073/pnas.1519019113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Ziajahromi S, Kumar A, Neale PA, Leusch FDL. Impact of microplastic beads and fibers on waterflea (Ceriodaphnia dubia) survival, growth, and reproduction: Implications of single and mixture exposures. Environmental Science & Technology. 2017;51(22):13397–406. 10.1021/acs.est.7b03574 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Ankley GT, Johnson RD. Small fish models for identifying and assessing the effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Ilar J. 2004;45(4):469–83. WOS:000224480300010. 10.1093/ilar.45.4.469 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Denslow N, Sepúlveda M. Ecotoxicological effects of endocrine disrupting compounds on fish reproduction In: Babin PJ, Cerdà J, Lubzens E, editors. The Fish Oocyte: From Basic Studies to Biotechnological Applications. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2007. p. 255–322. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Oehlmann J, Schulte-Oehlmann U, Kloas W, Jagnytsch O, Lutz I, Kusk KO, et al. A critical analysis of the biological impacts of plasticizers on wildlife. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2009;364(1526):2047–62. 10.1098/rstb.2008.0242 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Vandenberg LN, Colborn T, Hayes TB, Heindel JJ, Jacobs DR Jr., Lee D-H, et al. Hormones and endocrine-disrupting chemicals: Low-dose effects and nonmonotonic dose responses. Endocrine Reviews. 2012;33(3):378–455. 10.1210/er.2011-1050 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Suhrhoff TJ, Scholz-Böttcher BM. Qualitative impact of salinity, UV radiation and turbulence on leaching of organic plastic additives from four common plastics—A lab experiment. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2016;102(1):84–94. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.11.054 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Hahladakis JN, Velis CA, Weber R, Iacovidou E, Purnell P. An overview of chemical additives present in plastics: Migration, release, fate and environmental impact during their use, disposal and recycling. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2018;344:179–99. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2017.10.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Rochman CM, Kurobe T, Flores I, Teh SJ. Early warning signs of endocrine disruption in adult fish from the ingestion of polyethylene with and without sorbed chemical pollutants from the marine environment. Science of the Total Environment. 2014;493(Supplement C):656–61. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.06.051 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Ye T, Kang M, Huang Q, Fang C, Chen Y, Shen H, et al. Exposure to DEHP and MEHP from hatching to adulthood causes reproductive dysfunction and endocrine disruption in marine medaka (Oryzias melastigma). Aquatic Toxicology. 2014;146:115–26. 10.1016/j.aquatox.2013.10.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Canesi L, Fabbri E. Environmental effects of BPA: Focus on aquatic species. Dose-Response. 2015;13(3):1–14. 10.1177/1559325815598304 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Tangtian H, Bo L, Wenhua L, Shin PKS, Wu RSS. Estrogenic potential of benzotriazole on marine medaka (Oryzias melastigma). Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2012;80:327–32. 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2012.03.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Barrows APW, Cathey SE, Petersen CW. Marine environment microfiber contamination: Global patterns and the diversity of microparticle origins. Environmental Pollution. 2018;237:275–84. 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.02.062 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Lithner D, Larsson Å, Dave G. Environmental and health hazard ranking and assessment of plastic polymers based on chemical composition. Science of The Total Environment. 2011;409(18):3309–24. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.04.038 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Brennecke D, Duarte B, Paiva F, Caçador I, Canning-Clode J. Microplastics as vector for heavy metal contamination from the marine environment. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 2016;178:189–95. 10.1016/j.ecss.2015.12.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Rochman CM. The complex mixture, fate and toxicity of chemicals associated with plastic debris in the marine environment In: Bergmann M, Gutow L, Klages M, editors. Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2015. p. 117–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Rochman CM, Hoh E, Hentschel BT, Kaye S. Long-term field measurement of sorption of organic contaminants to five types of plastic pellets: Implications for plastic marine debris. Environmental Science & Technology. 2013;47(3):1646–54. 10.1021/es303700s [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Turner A, Holmes LA. Adsorption of trace metals by microplastic pellets in fresh water. Environmental Chemistry. 2015;12(5):600–10. 10.1071/EN14143 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Bakir A, Rowland SJ, Thompson RC. Competitive sorption of persistent organic pollutants onto microplastics in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2012;64(12):2782–9. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.09.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Lee H, Shim WJ, Kwon J-H. Sorption capacity of plastic debris for hydrophobic organic chemicals. Science of The Total Environment. 2014;470–471:1545–52. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.08.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Hüffer T, Hofmann T. Sorption of non-polar organic compounds by micro-sized plastic particles in aqueous solution. Environmental Pollution. 2016;214:194–201. 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.04.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Turner A. Mobilisation kinetics of hazardous elements in marine plastics subject to an avian physiologically-based extraction test. Environmental Pollution. 2018;236:1020–6. 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.01.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Wright SL, Thompson RC, Galloway TS. The physical impacts of microplastics on marine organisms: A review. Environmental Pollution. 2013;178:483–92. 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.02.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Flores-Lopes F, Thomaz AT. Histopathologic alterations observed in fish gills as a tool in environmental monitoring. Brazilian Journal of Biology. 2011;71(1):179–88. 10.1590/S1519-69842011000100026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Mazon AdF, Nolan DT, Lock RAC, Wendelaar Bonga SE, Fernandes MN. Opercular epithelial cells: A simple approach for in vitro studies of cellular responses in fish. Toxicology. 2007;230(1):53–63. 10.1016/j.tox.2006.10.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Kang C-K, Yang S-Y, Lin S-T, Lee T-H. The inner opercular membrane of the euryhaline teleost: a useful surrogate model for comparisons of different characteristics of ionocytes between seawater- and freshwater-acclimated medaka. Histochemistry and Cell Biology. 2015;143(1):69–81. 10.1007/s00418-014-1266-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Strzyzewska E, Szarek J, Babinska I. Morphologic evaluation of the gills as a tool in the diagnostics of pathological conditions in fish and pollution in the aquatic environment: a review. Veterinární Medicína. 2016;61(3):123–32. 10.17221/8763-VETMED [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Al-zaidan AS, Endo M, Maita M, Gonçalves AT, Futami K, Katagiri T. A toxicity bioassay study concerning the effect of un-ionized ammonia on the mucus cells response originating from the gills of zebrafish Danio rerio. Fisheries Science. 2013;79(1):129–42. 10.1007/s12562-012-0573-6 . [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Wu Y, Zhou Q. Silver nanoparticles cause oxidative damage and histological changes in medaka (Oryzias latipes) after 14 days of exposure. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 2013;32(1):165–73. 10.1002/etc.2038 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Movahedinia A, Abtahi B, Bahmani M. Gill Histopathological Lesions of the Sturgeons. Asian J Anim Vet Adv. 2012;7(8):710–7. 10.3923/ajava.2012.710.717 . [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Farrell AP, Ackerman PA, Iwama GK. Disorders of the Cardiovascular and Respiratory Systems In: Leatherland JF, Woo PTK, editors. Fish Diseases and Disorders, 2: Non-Infectious Disorders. 2. 2 ed Wallingford, CN: CABI; 2010. p. 287–322. [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Nascimento AA, Araújo FG, Gomes ID, Mendes RMM, Sales A. Fish gills alterations as potential biomarkers of environmental quality in a eutrophized tropical river in south-eastern Brazil. Anatomia, Histologia, Embryologia. 2012;41(3):209–16. 10.1111/j.1439-0264.2011.01125.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Sales CF, Santos KPEd, Rizzo E, Ribeiro RIMdA, Santos HBd, Thomé RG. Proliferation, survival and cell death in fish gills remodeling: From injury to recovery. Fish & Shellfish Immunology. 2017;68:10–8. 10.1016/j.fsi.2017.07.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Stentiford GD, Longshaw M, Lyons BP, Jones G, Green M, Feist SW. Histopathological biomarkers in estuarine fish species for the assessment of biological effects of contaminants. Marine Environmental Research. 2003;55(2):137–59. 10.1016/s0141-1136(02)00212-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Harper C, Wolf JC. Morphologic effects of the stress response in fish. Ilar J. 2009;50(4):387–96. 10.1093/ilar.50.4.387 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Hassaan MA, El Nemr A. Health and environmental impacts of dyes: Mini review. American Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering. 2017;1(3):64–7. 10.11648/j.ajese.20170103.11 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Evans JJ, Shoemaker CA, Klesius PH. In vivo and in vitro effects of benzothiazole on sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus). Marine Environmental Research. 2000;50(1):257–61. 10.1016/S0141-1136(00)00090-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Cerqueira CCC, Fernandes MN. Gill tissue recovery after copper exposure and blood parameter responses in the tropical fish Prochilodus scrofa. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2002;52(2):83–91. 10.1006/eesa.2002.2164 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Abbasi S, Soltani N, Keshavarzi B, Moore F, Turner A, Hassanaghaei M. Microplastics in different tissues of fish and prawn from the Musa Estuary, Persian Gulf. Chemosphere. 2018;205:80–7. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.04.076 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Pedà C, Caccamo L, Fossi MC, Gai F, Andaloro F, Genovese L, et al. Intestinal alterations in European sea bass Dicentrarchus labrax (Linnaeus, 1758) exposed to microplastics: Preliminary results. Environmental Pollution. 2016;212(Supplement C):251–6. 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.01.083 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Shephard KL. Functions for fish mucus. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries. 1994;4(4):401–29. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Aldo Corriero

19 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-29596

Chronic microfiber exposure in adult Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes)

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hinton,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

This is an interesting and well programmed study on a hot topic. I agree with the two reviewers that it is technically robust and I noted that all the data underlying the study are available in a public repository.  However, there is need for a number of clarifications/corrections before the manuscript can be accepted for publication. During the manuscript revision, in addition to the all the comments of the two reviewers, please take into consideration also the following:

Line 197 “…. specimens were immersed in 10x volume of formalin….” What does 10x volume formalin means? Maybe 10%

Line 198 ”fixed at room temperature overnight and then stored at 4ºC until time of processing (section 2.7”). How were the samples sored? Where they removed from formalin?

Line 255 “Mann-Whitney U-test was used to determine differences in the quantities of MFs and embryos, K, GSI, HSI, body weight and length of medaka among different treatment groups.”

Why did you use a non-parametric test?

Please carefully check the statistics paragraph. It seems that not all the examined parameters have been reported in the statistic paragraph.  

Line 266 “Behavior (e.g., increased opercular movements, erratic swimming, gasping at surface, cowering) was evaluated and no changes were observed.” Please report methods and results for these observations or remove the sentence.

Line 271 Females exposed to PP MFs produced more eggs over the course of the experiment, becoming significantly higher than other treatments by the last week (Fig 2A, p=0.013). How were egg productions compared? This is not reported in the Material and methods section.

Line 302. It seems that only 2 fish were treated in the preparatory experiments. Are the observed anomalies of branchial cavity and gills referred to both the treated fish? What about the number of fish showing all the anomalies reported after 21 days exposure to MF? All the treated fish showed all the reported anomalies? This is not clear. I would suggest adding a table summarizing these findings. Were not gut mucus and globlet cells found in controls?   Why the micrographs regarding these findings are not provided in the manuscript as normal high resolution micrographs? 

Line 398. Rochman, Kurobe (48)…Please uniform this reference to the journal’s style.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Feb 02 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Aldo Corriero, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1.When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Our internal editors have looked over your manuscript and determined that it may be within the scope of our Plastics in the Environment Call for Papers. The Collection will encompass a diverse range of research articles to better understand various aspects of the effect of plastics in the environment. Additional information can be found on our announcement page: https://collections.plos.org/s/plastics-environment. If you would like your manuscript to be considered for this collection, please let us know in your cover letter and we will ensure that your paper is treated as if you were responding to this call. If you would prefer to remove your manuscript from collection consideration, please specify this in the cover letter."

3. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the processes for euthanasia.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Review:

The topic of this study is worthwhile. There has been little toxicity work on microfibers compared to other types of microplastics. Moreover, there is a need for more chronic toxicity testing in fish with microplastics of any shape/type.

This is also a nice study in that they looked at reproductive endpoints, explored effects in the F1 generation and looked closely at transport and effect using histology.

Overall, this is technically sound based upon some clarification about methods and assumptions being made.

Most people use PET or PEST for polyester. I’d use something more commonly used versus a new acronym. I think technically it’s PET, but I think people maybe steer away from this because of the non-textile PET. Still, they are the same polymer.

How have the authors decided that 10,000/L is environmentally relevant? I don’t think what is in Arctic ice is at all relevant to exposure in fish. Why not just be honest that 1000 is environmentally relevant (on the high end!) and that 10,000 is an extreme (maybe future? concentration).

The introduction reads well.

In methods:

Because it’s more common in the field, I’d provide the average length in micrometers. I’d also suggest giving the standard deviation. I think that is what authors really want to see, in addition to what you have provided.

For the count to mass – does this mean you built a regression off of three points? Can this be described a bit better to understand how many different masses were run in triplicate? If just one, I don’t think a regression is appropriate.

In the SI, I see 5 points, and 5 beakers, (but not three points per mass) so I’m confused what you did. Can you please elaborate on this more in the text?

Prelim study: (can you state why you did a prelim study in first sentence, it’s not clear)

8-month old adults were used. Breeding pairs. Fish were fed two times per day. C, 1000 (PET or PP), 10000 (PET or PP). n=2; exposure time = 21 days.

It’s not well stated how microfibers were added to the tanks. Seems they were simply added to the water and always there. But, when you siphon, how do you decide how much more to add to the tanks?? Are you assuming homogeneity in the water when you remove 25%? Can you say anything about how the actual exposure changed over time? (okay – now I see this is below, but could be described better above so a reader doesn’t get confused – you can describe this was a test to inform how to do additions of microfibers).

When fecal material was removed, how were you sure you just removed fecal material and not fibers that simply settled on the bottom? PET is negatively buoyant and PP is positively buoyant. I’m curious how you can be sure that is what was actually egested versus just in the tank.

This also brings me to a question about how the MFs behaved in the beakers. Did the two types sit in different places in the beaker, thus altering exposure between the two types? I’m just curious, but so may be another reader.

Actual study: 33 breeding pairs, 27 of which were selected based on breeding status. For experiment, used an n=9. Other parameters same as above. They did a hatch out of fertilized eggs and raised them to 14 days post-fertilization. Then measured body length.

In adults, histopath done on 3 breeding pairs per treatment. Was this decided at random?

3 were also taken for SEM.

For other 3, taken for chem analysis.

Please provide how many were used for condition indices? Was this an n=6?

When tank water was sampled for chemical analysis, did you filter out fibers first?

For stats, can you provide your n for each test and can you state why you used non-parametric statistics.

Results:

How was behavior evaluated? Systematically, or just anecdotally you observed no changes?

Again, I really think you should explain how you knew MFs were in feces versus just landed on feces.

Each time a histological change is reported I’d state in how many fish of the fish examined.

The greater amount of PET excreted may be because they sink and were mingling with the feces at the bottom of the tank. It may have nothing to do with bioavailability unless you accounted for this somehow. I suggest discussing this – as mentioned twice above.

If the data is to be fully available, I do not think that it is.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript examined effects of microfiber ingestion on medaka. The experiment was designed well. A thorough assessment was made of MF entry, egress, and interaction with tissues as they passed through head gut, branchial chamber, and digestive system. Ultra-structural changes in the gill and gut were examined. Findings suggest that MF ingestion does not affect major physiological processes including reproduction but induce aneurysms in secondary lamellae, epithelial lifting, and swellings of inner opercular membrane that altered morphology of rostral most gill lamellae. Increased numbers of mucous cells and secretions on epithelium of foregut was observed but without overt abrasions with sloughing of cells. Results suggest that microfiber ingestion causes adverse effects on gills and the gut in fish.

I suggest authors to address a few issues. The findings that PP MF ingestion caused increased fecundity and fertilization success in fish sounds interesting. The mechanism underlying this change has been specuclated to be estrogenicity of plastic MFs. This speculation should be removed from the abstract.

Line 165: “most consistent productivity were selected”. Please mention what these parameters were.

Line 180: “Eggs were collected by siphoning 24 h after complete water changes and examined to determine whether MFs in tank water had become incorporated in egg clutches.” Medaka tend to eat their eggs after spawning. If eggs were siphoned from the bottom, then the numbers could be inaccurate. To avoid this, eggs should be collected directly from the fish 30 minutes after spawning. Also, spawning time is not mentioned. Was the spawning sychronized? Usually medaka lay eggs within an hour of lights on in the morning.

Line 333-339: “Petechiae (i.e., small spots of hemorrhage) and epithelial lifting were found in gills of 50% of control fish, but were minor in size and extent, with rare petechiae in different positions along the gill filament. Conversely, aneurysms and epithelial lifting occurred in gills of 67% of PES-treated and 83% of PP-treated fish and were numerous and mainly concentrated along water outflow tracts (i.e., passages between adjacent gill arches and their associated primary lamellae) (Fig 4E). Fusion of secondary lamellae was observed in MF-treated fish, most frequently (67%) after PP exposure (Figs 4H and 5H)”. Would you expect a recovery of all these phenotypic traits in these fish if transferred to water for 21 days without MFs? Addition of this piece of data would strengthen the finding of this manuscript.

Line 393-413: Fecundity part of discussion is extremely speculated. Have you found the leached amount of BPA or phthalates from MFs to be effective enough to induce these physiological changes in 21 days of exposure? This part of discussion needs to be rewritten minimize speculation if supporting evidence is not available.

How about the possibility for loading of other chemical contaminants into the body together with microfibers ingestion in a natural situation? Addition of this information would strengthen the quality of this manuscript.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

 

PLoS One. 2020 Mar 9;15(3):e0229962. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229962.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


24 Jan 2020

Editor’s Comments

This is an interesting and well programmed study on a hot topic. I agree with the two reviewers that it is technically robust and I noted that all the data underlying the study are available in a public repository. However, there is need for a number of clarifications/corrections before the manuscript can be accepted for publication. During the manuscript revision, in addition to the all the comments of the two reviewers, please take into consideration also the following.

Response: We thank the editor for the positive feedback. We have addressed editor’s concerns as well as those of the reviewers in the responses below. We have provided line numbers where appropriate for specific changes; line numbers in Revised Manuscript with Track Changes are preceded by “TC” and those in the clean, revised Manuscript are preceded with “M”. We are keeping the original figure uploads with our revision only for peer review. As instructed below, we have uploaded high resolution versions of these figures to PACE.

Specific comments

Line 197 “…. specimens were immersed in 10x volume of formalin….” What does 10x volume formalin means? Maybe 10%

Response: Thank you for the comment. This was meant to express the volume of formalin was tenfold that of specimens. This volume is used to ensure that the 10% concentration is not diluted by fluid transfer from the intact fish, that adequate fixation occurs, and that specimens can be stored long term until processing [1-2]. We have revised it (TC214; M207).

1. Meyers TR. Fish pathology section laboratory manual. 3rd ed. Juneau, AK: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Commercial Fisheries Division; 2009.

2. Morrison J, Smith C, Heidel J, Mumford S, Blazer VS, MacConnell E. Fish Histology and Histopathology Manual. In: USFWS, editor. Shepardstown, WV: National Conservation Training Center; 2014. p. 357.

Line 198 ”fixed at room temperature overnight and then stored at 4ºC until time of processing (section 2.7”). How were the samples stored? Where they removed from formalin?

Response: The specimens were placed in 50-mL centrifuge tubes (1 breeding pair/tube) filled with 10% neutral buffered formalin. These tubes remained at room temperature overnight for the formalin to penetrate/fix the specimens. Then the tubes were moved to a refrigerator (4ºC) to be stored until processing for histology (TC214-217; M207-209). Specimens were not removed from formalin. We have edited this sentence to increase clarity.

Line 255 “Mann-Whitney U-test was used to determine differences in the quantities of MFs and embryos, K, GSI, HSI, body weight and length of medaka among different treatment groups.”

Why did you use a non-parametric test?

Please carefully check the statistics paragraph. It seems that not all the examined parameters have been reported in the statistic paragraph.

Response: Thank you for the comment. Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests were performed to test for normality, and a Levene test was used for homogeneity of variance. Our data were not normally distributed and had unequal variance. Therefore, we used non-parametric tests. We have added this detail to section 2.9 (TC273-285; M265-275). We have verified the tests listed in section 2.9 and edited it to make sure all presented data are listed.

Line 266 “Behavior (e.g., increased opercular movements, erratic swimming, gasping at surface, cowering) was evaluated and no changes were observed.” Please report methods and results for these observations or remove the sentence.

Response: During our experiment, we employed our normal assessment that we use for our colony, which includes daily observations for these signs of stress. We did not observe alterations in these daily assessments. Thus, we have moved this sentence to the Methods section 2.5 (TC147-149; M145-147) and revised it.

Line 271 Females exposed to PP MFs produced more eggs over the course of the experiment, becoming significantly higher than other treatments by the last week (Fig 2A, p=0.013). How were egg productions compared? This is not reported in the Material and methods section.

Response: We wanted to make sure that we began our experiment with females that produced the same number of eggs and males that were able to successfully fertilize those eggs. Reproduction also needed to be high, both in egg numbers as well as fertilization success, and consistent so that we did not mistake variability with a microfiber related effect. These numbers also served as baseline “Before Exposure” values. In this way, we were able to compare these endpoints from different exposure weeks with that baseline within the same treatment group (Fig. 2). These methods about embryo collection and assessment are sections 2.4 (TC174-175; M171-172) and 2.5 (TC195-197; M190-194). Production was compared both between treatment groups (effect of exposure/MF type) as well as within treatment groups (effect of exposure time) (TC277-280; M269-272). The legend for Fig. 2 provides additional information regarding this analysis. We have added details to these areas that should increase clarity.

Line 302. It seems that only 2 fish were treated in the preparatory experiments. Are the observed anomalies of branchial cavity and gills referred to both the treated fish? What about the number of fish showing all the anomalies reported after 21 days exposure to MF? All the treated fish showed all the reported anomalies? This is not clear. I would suggest adding a table summarizing these findings. Were not gut mucus and globlet cells found in controls? Why the micrographs regarding these findings are not provided in the manuscript as normal high resolution micrographs?

Response: A preliminary study was conducted in order to determine 1) whether aqueous exposures to MFs would result in uptake and 2) how and in what quantities MFs should be used (a sentence now added to the beginning of section 2.3: TC127-128; M126-127). For this preliminary, 2 breeding pairs (4 fish) were in each treatment group. SEM and histology were not performed on preliminary fish. During dissections, we looked carefully for MFs inside the fish under a stereomicroscope. Digestion of excised organs using H2O2 was performed (TC160-161, 166-171; M157-158,169-168) to determine presence of MFs. Females were fixed in formalin and stored as described in section 2.6 in case we needed to go back and re-evaluate. It turned out that this was not needed. Instead of another table in Supplemental Information, we have added worksheets to our data file publicly available on Figshare to supply preliminary data, additional pictures and figures.

In the formal experiment, occurrences were high for some changes. For example, 83% of PP exposed fish and 67% of PES exposed fish had epithelial lifting on gills. We report percent occurrences in the text of section 3.4. As such, we consider a table to be redundant, but should the editor still deem it necessary we are happy to add one.

The editor is correct in that the surface of the gut lumen has a mucus layer secreted by goblet cells within the underlying mucosa [1-2]. As in gills, increased mucus production in gut is considered a first defense strategy to foreign particles [3] and can be visualized when special stains such as AB-PAS are used. The increase in size and number of goblet cells indicates a response to MFs. Such increases result in additional mucus to provide a physical barrier, prevent mechanical damage, and facilitate passage of MFs through the gut [4-5]. We believe this mechanism was successful in protecting gut tissues from damage, which was not the case in branchial chamber.

Considering the types and degree of changes we observed, we consider the branchial chamber to be the primary area affected. As we already have 7 multi-paneled figures, one of which is SEM of gut, we did not feel it necessary to add the micrographs in S7 Fig to the main manuscript. However, if the editor believes the manuscript is better served with it there, we can move it out of Supporting Information.

Regarding micrographs in general: We are uploading high resolution image files for all figures to the PACE digital tool so that readers may zoom in to insets and other areas of interest without pixelating the image.

1. Linden SK, Sutton P, Karlsson NG, Korolik V, McGuckin MA. Mucins in the mucosal barrier to infection. Mucosal Immunology. 2008;1:183. doi: 10.1038/mi.2008.5.

2. Sundh H, Sundell KS. Environmental impacts on fish mucosa. In: Beck BH, Peatman E, editors. Mucosal Health in Aquaculture. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 2015. p. 171-97. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-417186-2.00007-8

3. Pedà C, Caccamo L, Fossi MC, Gai F, Andaloro F, Genovese L, et al. Intestinal alterations in European sea bass Dicentrarchus labrax (Linnaeus, 1758) exposed to microplastics: Preliminary results. Environmental Pollution. 2016;212(Supplement C):251-6. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.01.083.

4. Peterson TS. Overview of mucosal structure and function in teleost fishes. In: Beck BH, Peatman E, editors. Mucosal Health in Aquaculture. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 2015. p. 55-65. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-417186-2.00003-0

5. Shephard KL. Functions for fish mucus. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries. 1994;4(4):401-29.

Line 398. Rochman, Kurobe (48)…Please uniform this reference to the journal’s style.

Response: It appears that the downloaded EndNote citation template has this error. We have corrected the in-text citations to the journal’s style.

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

a. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

b. http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Response: We have thoroughly checked the manuscript to ensure it meets these requirements.

2. Our internal editors have looked over your manuscript and determined that it may be within the scope of our Plastics in the Environment Call for Papers. The Collection will encompass a diverse range of research articles to better understand various aspects of the effect of plastics in the environment. Additional information can be found on our announcement page: https://collections.plos.org/s/plastics-environment. If you would like your manuscript to be considered for this collection, please let us know in your cover letter and we will ensure that your paper is treated as if you were responding to this call. If you would prefer to remove your manuscript from collection consideration, please specify this in the cover letter."

Response: We agree that our study is a good fit with the Plastics in the Environment Call for Papers. We would like for it to be considered for this collection. We have also indicated this in our cover letter.

3. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the processes for euthanasia.

Response: We have added additional description and the citations below for the rapid cooling method for euthanasia at its first mention in Methods section 2.3 (TC167-168; M163-165). Rapid cooling (or hypothermal shock) is considered to be a less stressful and more rapid method of euthanasia than MS-222 [1]. It is recommended by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) for finfish [2, see its section S2.5] and was approved by the Duke University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) for this study.

1. Matthews M, Varga ZM. Anesthesia and Euthanasia in Zebrafish. ILAR J. 2012;53(2):192-204. doi: 10.1093/ilar.53.2.192.

2. Leary SL, Underwood W, Anthony R, Cartner S, Corey D, Grandin T, et al., editors. AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals: 2013 Edition. 2013: American Veterinary Medical Association, Schaumburg, IL. https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/resources/euthanasia.pdf

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Reviewer #1:

The topic of this study is worthwhile. There has been little toxicity work on microfibers compared to other types of microplastics. Moreover, there is a need for more chronic toxicity testing in fish with microplastics of any shape/type.

This is also a nice study in that they looked at reproductive endpoints, explored effects in the F1 generation and looked closely at transport and effect using histology.

Overall, this is technically sound based upon some clarification about methods and assumptions being made.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the positive feedback and specific comments, we have addressed each in the responses below. We have provided line numbers where appropriate for specific changes; line numbers in Revised Manuscript with Track Changes are preceded by “TC” and those in clean, revised Manuscript are preceded with “M”.

Most people use PET or PEST for polyester. I’d use something more commonly used versus a new acronym. I think technically it’s PET, but I think people maybe steer away from this because of the non-textile PET. Still, they are the same polymer.

Response: We agree with the reviewer that PET is used as an acronym for polyester. However, polyester is a category of polymer that includes polyethylene terephthalate, also commonly abbreviated as PET. We have seen the abbreviation PES to refer to polyester (fibers in particular) in several journal articles [e.g., 1-4], much fewer PEST [5]. Therefore, to avoid confusion with other polymers, we use PES to distinguish it.

1. de Sá LC, Oliveira M, Ribeiro F, Rocha TL, Futter MN. Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: What do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? Science of The Total Environment. 2018;645:1029-39. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.207.

2. 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):2. doi: 10.1186/s12302-015-0069-y.

3. Ivleva NP, Wiesheu AC, Niessner R. Microplastic in aquatic ecosystems. Angewandte Chemie International Edition. 2017;56(7):1720-39. doi: 10.1002/anie.201606957.

4. Deng H, Wei R, Luo W, Hu L, Li B, Di Yn, et al. Microplastic pollution in water and sediment in a textile industrial area. Environmental Pollution. 2020;258:113658. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113658.

5. Rummel CD, Löder MGJ, Fricke NF, Lang T, Griebeler E-M, Janke M, et al. Plastic ingestion by pelagic and demersal fish from the North Sea and Baltic Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2016;102(1):134-41. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.11.043.

How have the authors decided that 10,000/L is environmentally relevant? I don’t think what is in Arctic ice is at all relevant to exposure in fish. Why not just be honest that 1000 is environmentally relevant (on the high end!) and that 10,000 is an extreme (maybe future? concentration).

Response: We agree with the reviewer that 10,000/L is a high concentration of MFs. We used “environmentally relevant” in this study to refer to concentrations detected in the environment (i.e., Arctic ice). We also agree that “extreme or future concentration” may be a better way to refer to it. To avoid misunderstanding, we have deleted “environmentally relevant” in the manuscript (TC27-28, 139) and added future concentration to this portion of the Methods (TC139-141; M138-139).

The introduction reads well.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment.

In methods:

Because it’s more common in the field, I’d provide the average length in micrometers. I’d also suggest giving the standard deviation. I think that is what authors really want to see, in addition to what you have provided.

Response: We have changed the units to µm as the reviewer requested. However, we left the units as mm in Fig. 1A4-B4 because the additional text required for µm would make the axis labels difficult to read. Note there was the percentage of size distributions of MFs (Fig. 1A4-B4) and no standard deviation.

For the count to mass – does this mean you built a regression off of three points? Can this be described a bit better to understand how many different masses were run in triplicate? If just one, I don’t think a regression is appropriate.

In the SI, I see 5 points, and 5 beakers, (but not three points per mass) so I’m confused what you did. Can you please elaborate on this more in the text?

Response: We set up five gradient masses (5 points on each graph) (TC112; M111). For each mass/point, the filter, imaging and counting processes were repeated in triplicate (TC118-119; M117-118). This gave us three measurements per mass/point. We used the average number per mass to build the regression (S1 Fig B,D). We have added this information to the methods (TC108-120; 107-119) as well as the counts in the data file available on Figshare. See the response below regarding beakers for additional information.

Prelim study: (can you state why you did a prelim study in first sentence, it’s not clear)

8-month old adults were used. Breeding pairs. Fish were fed two times per day. C, 1000 (PET or PP), 10000 (PET or PP). n=2; exposure time = 21 days.

It’s not well stated how microfibers were added to the tanks. Seems they were simply added to the water and always there. But, when you siphon, how do you decide how much more to add to the tanks?? Are you assuming homogeneity in the water when you remove 25%? Can you say anything about how the actual exposure changed over time? (okay – now I see this is below, but could be described better above so a reader doesn’t get confused – you can describe this was a test to inform how to do additions of microfibers).

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have added a sentence to the beginning of section 2.3 (TC127-128; M126-127).

The reviewer is correct that the MFs were added (dry) to tanks. The amount added was based on volume of water removed and amount of MFs bound to feces (also removed). There was some assumption of homogeneity of MFs in water that was removed during cleaning. Please see the responses below regarding MF addition, quantities in feces, and buoyancy.

When fecal material was removed, how were you sure you just removed fecal material and not fibers that simply settled on the bottom? PET is negatively buoyant and PP is positively buoyant. I’m curious how you can be sure that is what was actually egested versus just in the tank.

Response: We agree that buoyancy was a potentially complicating factor. We considered this when designing and executing our preliminary study. We collected feces with a 7.5-mL transfer pipette to avoid removing too much water volume that might affect MF concentration or skew egestion numbers. Additionally, when we observed our collected samples under a stereomicroscope, we noted that excreted MFs were bound within the feces (Fig. 3) and very few (i.e., negligible number) MFs were in the water collected with them. This was the case with both fiber types. We have added these details to section 2.3 (TC156-158; M153-155).

This also brings me to a question about how the MFs behaved in the beakers. Did the two types sit in different places in the beaker, thus altering exposure between the two types? I’m just curious, but so may be another reader.

Response: This is another good observation by the reviewer and one we also considered in the design and execution of our study. The beakers pictured in S1 Fig A,C show MFs in 70% ethanol, which disperses them evenly within the solution and are just visualizations for the accompanying standard curves (S1 Fig. B,D). During our early characterizations of the MFs, we observed that many MFs suspended in water remained on walls of beakers when water was poured out. The only way to remove all adhered MFs was to add clean water and repour, often multiple times, thereby changing our final MF concentration. We realized that we needed a way to introduce a known number of MFs to tanks based on the amount of water removed during routine tank maintenance as well as those bound to feces (also removed from tanks). The method also needed to be practical because counting 10,000 fibers/L for 9 tanks/treatment for 21 days was time consuming and unrealistic. This was the impetus for the creation of the standard curves shown in S1 Fig, which allowed us to add dry MFs by weight. These curves provided a weight (mg) MFs needed based amount of water removed, and the preliminary study determined the number of MFs bound to removed feces. Additionally, full cleanings every 7 days “reset” tanks in case the number had drifted in one direction or another.

As density of MFs determines location in the water column, it affects bioavailability. Even with mixing provided by air stones, some MFs sank or floated. This was why we felt the need to address it in terms of exposure in the Discussion (TC486-503; M468-485).

Actual study: 33 breeding pairs, 27 of which were selected based on breeding status. For experiment, used an n=9. Other parameters same as above. They did a hatch out of fertilized eggs and raised them to 14 days post-fertilization. Then measured body length.

In adults, histopath done on 3 breeding pairs per treatment. Was this decided at random?

3 were also taken for SEM.

For other 3, taken for chem analysis.

Please provide how many were used for condition indices? Was this an n=6?

Response: The reviewer is correct. We moved 66 fish (33 males and 33 females) from the same age cohort in our breeding colony to our exposure room to make 33 breeding pairs. Under clean conditions, we assessed each pair for reproduction. We started with more pairs than we would ultimately use because we knew a small proportion may not be desirable for the experiment. Any fish that did not reproduce were returned to the colony. Of the confirmed breeders, the 27 pairs that produced consistent, high numbers of fertilized eggs were selected for the study. There were no significant differences in the egg numbers or fertilization rates between treatment groups before exposure. This also provided a baseline for selection and later comparisons over the course of the experiment.

In terms of “randomness,” this was determined at the beginning rather than at the end of the experiment. The 27 pairs that were chosen were assigned randomly to the 3 treatment groups, with 9 pairs (18 fish) per group. Tanks in each group were numbered 1-9. Before the exposure began, tanks 1-3 were allocated to histology, 4-6 to chemistry, and 7-9 to SEM. The type of analysis for each pair/fish was determined based tank number and not on data or observations made during the course of the experiment.

All fish in each treatment group were assessed for condition factor (K). Because organs were not removed from fish allocated to histology, GSI and HSI were from 6 pairs (n=12) from each group. We have added “n=” values where needed in the manuscript (e.g., TC282-283; M273).

When tank water was sampled for chemical analysis, did you filter out fibers first?

Response: We avoided the collection of fibers when sampling tank water. Moreover, the water was filtered (0.2 µm) before instrument detection (TC186-187; M182-184).

For stats, can you provide your n for each test and can you state why you used non-parametric statistics.

Response: Thank you for the comment. We have added “n=” values where needed. Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests were performed to test for normality, and a Levene test was used for homogeneity of variance. Our data were not normally distributed and had unequal variance. Therefore, we used non-parametric tests. We have added this to section 2.9 (TC274-284; M266-274).

Results:

How was behavior evaluated? Systematically, or just anecdotally you observed no changes?

Response: This was evidently a confusing point as it was brought up by another reviewer. For behavior, we employed our normal assessment that we use for our colony, which includes daily observations for signs of stress. We used these routine observations during the experiment. We did not observe alterations in behavior. As this is not a behavioral study, making this routine observation more of a method, we have moved this sentence to the Methods section 2.5 (TC147-149; M145-147) and revised it.

Again, I really think you should explain how you knew MFs were in feces versus just landed on feces.

Response: We understand the importance of this distinction. We did not observe preferential binding of suspended or sunken MFs to feces (we have added this to section 2.3: TC156-158; M154-155). Observations of feces using a stereomicroscope showed MFs to be bound within fecal material (Fig. 3). Additionally, SEM of gut consistently showed MFs to be encased within digesta (Fig. 6E). As stated above, we collected as little water as possible with the feces and there were negligible numbers of free MFs (TC156-157; M153-154). These would have been MFs that had landed on or very near feces in the tank should that have happened. Therefore, we are confident the MFs we counted from fecal material were those bound within it.

Each time a histological change is reported I’d state in how many fish of the fish examined.

Response: For each treatment group, there were 6 fish (3 males, 3 females) sectioned for histology. We expressed occurrence results as percentages of these 6 fish. We believe that our addition of “n=” values in various portions of the manuscript will clarify this.

The greater amount of PET excreted may be because they sink and were mingling with the feces at the bottom of the tank. It may have nothing to do with bioavailability unless you accounted for this somehow. I suggest discussing this – as mentioned twice above.

Response: We have added sentences in both the Methods and Discussion (TC493-495; M475-477) that address this issue. Our observations of negligible numbers of MFs collected with feces support our conclusion that measured MFs from feces were indeed those bound within it. For this reason, we consider buoyancy of MFs to be a larger factor for ingestion as described in the Discussion (M477-485).

If the data is to be fully available, I do not think that it is.

Response: Our raw data set file is available from the Figshare database (https://figshare.com/s/08259bef8fbc6df4dc2e) with doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.10031471. All other data and figures are in the manuscript and supporting information.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Reviewer #2:

This manuscript examined effects of microfiber ingestion on medaka. The experiment was designed well. A thorough assessment was made of MF entry, egress, and interaction with tissues as they passed through head gut, branchial chamber, and digestive system. Ultra-structural changes in the gill and gut were examined. Findings suggest that MF ingestion does not affect major physiological processes including reproduction but induce aneurysms in secondary lamellae, epithelial lifting, and swellings of inner opercular membrane that altered morphology of rostral most gill lamellae. Increased numbers of mucous cells and secretions on epithelium of foregut was observed but without overt abrasions with sloughing of cells. Results suggest that microfiber ingestion causes adverse effects on gills and the gut in fish.

Response: Thank you for the constructive and detailed comments. We have addressed the reviewer’s concerns in the responses below. We have provided line numbers where appropriate for specific changes; line numbers in Revised Manuscript with Track Changes are preceded by “TC” and those in clean, revised Manuscript are preceded with “M”.

I suggest authors to address a few issues. The findings that PP MF ingestion caused increased fecundity and fertilization success in fish sounds interesting. The mechanism underlying this change has been specuclated to be estrogenicity of plastic MFs. This speculation should be removed from the abstract.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion, we have removed this from the abstract (TC32). We have addressed it with additional detail in the Discussion (section 4.2: TC425-440,449-463; M414-427,436-445) and in a response below.

Line 165: “most consistent productivity were selected”. Please mention what these parameters were.

Response: Consistent productivity refers to a female producing the same number of eggs each day and males consistently fertilizing the same percentage of those eggs. We did not want variability in production to influence later measurements and comparisons. We have added the definition for this in section 2.3 (TC176-177; M173-174).

Line 180: “Eggs were collected by siphoning 24 h after complete water changes and examined to determine whether MFs in tank water had become incorporated in egg clutches.” Medaka tend to eat their eggs after spawning. If eggs were siphoned from the bottom, then the numbers could be inaccurate. To avoid this, eggs should be collected directly from the fish 30 minutes after spawning. Also, spawning time is not mentioned. Was the spawning sychronized? Usually medaka lay eggs within an hour of lights on in the morning.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s knowledge of medaka. We collected eggs within a 24 h period after complete water changes rather than after 24 h (we have revised this sentence: TC195; M190). We did not want to add handling stress to our fish by removing eggs manually from females. Also, any net used to capture fish would have also captured MFs, reducing concentration. We have maintained this medaka colony for >20 years and have data on spawning times, egg numbers, fertilization rates, deformity rates, and hatching times/success. Most females in our breeding colony strip eggs within ~1 h after lights turn on in the morning, typically ~30 min after feeding. A small proportion of females strip eggs ~30 min after midday feeding (~1-2pm). Observations and counts of experimental fish during the reproductive evaluation both in the preliminary study and before the formal experiment showed this same pattern. The reviewer is correct that medaka tend to eat their eggs after spawning. For this reason, we checked for oviposition before and after feedings, and every 2-3 h, and eggs were collected as soon as they were observed (we have added this information to Methods). Because the proximity of our offices and main laboratory to our exposure room (~25 m), the frequency of these observations was facilitated. The total number of eggs per day, both before the exposure and during, is consistent with the number of eggs medaka females should produce [1]. Finally, we observed no eggs in gut in SEM or histologic sections.

1. Kinoshita M, Murata K, Naruse K, Tanaka M. Medaka: Biology, management, and experimental protocols. Singapore: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.; 2009.

Line 333-339: “Petechiae (i.e., small spots of hemorrhage) and epithelial lifting were found in gills of 50% of control fish, but were minor in size and extent, with rare petechiae in different positions along the gill filament. Conversely, aneurysms and epithelial lifting occurred in gills of 67% of PES-treated and 83% of PP-treated fish and were numerous and mainly concentrated along water outflow tracts (i.e., passages between adjacent gill arches and their associated primary lamellae) (Fig 4E). Fusion of secondary lamellae was observed in M recovery F-treated fish, most frequently (67%) after PP exposure (Figs 4H and 5H)”. Would you expect a of all these phenotypic traits in these fish if transferred to water for 21 days without MFs? Addition of this piece of data would strengthen the finding of this manuscript.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this observation and agree. Petechiae that are minor in size and extent, as seen in controls are reversible changes [1, 2]. Moderate changes leading to effects associated with organ function can be repaired unless wide areas are affected [1, 2]. Lamellar aneurysms and complete lamellar fusions are severe pathologies [2, 3]. The former results in damage including loss of pillar cells and destruction of lamellae [2-4]. Recovery of aneurysms is somewhat controversial [3]. Severe changes such as these are often irreversible even when water quality improves [1, 2]. That said, there are some reports of recovery after transfer to clean water. For example, after Hypostomus francisci (a Brazillian catfish sp.) from a polluted river exhibited epithelial hypertrophy and lifting, lamellar fusion, aneurysms, hyperemia, and vascular congestion [3]. While recovery was slow after placement in clean water, full recovery of lamellar aneurysms occurred after 30 days and apoptosis was stimulated to promote gill structure recovery [3]. In a laboratory study, aneurysms developed on tips of primary lamellae of Prochilodus scrofa (a tropical teleost fish) exposed to copper for 96 h, with additional damage in the form of epithelial lifting, cell swelling, and proliferation of pavement, chloride, and mucous cells [5]. Again, recovery was slow after transfer to clean water (30-45 days), but much of this damage was reversible [5].

We have added the above to the Discussion (TC543-555; M525-537).

1. Nascimento AA, Araújo FG, Gomes ID, Mendes RMM, Sales A. Fish gills alterations as potential biomarkers of environmental quality in a eutrophized tropical river in south-eastern Brazil. Anatomia, Histologia, Embryologia. 2012;41(3):209-16. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0264.2011.01125.x.

2. Flores-Lopes F, Thomaz AT. Histopathologic alterations observed in fish gills as a tool in environmental monitoring. Brazilian Journal of Biology. 2011;71(1):179-88. doi: 10.1590/S1519-69842011000100026.

3. Sales CF, Santos KPEd, Rizzo E, Ribeiro RIMdA, Santos HBd, Thomé RG. Proliferation, survival and cell death in fish gills remodeling: From injury to recovery. Fish & Shellfish Immunology. 2017;68:10-8. doi: 10.1016/j.fsi.2017.07.001.

4. Strzyzewska E, Szarek J, Babinska I. Morphologic evaluation of the gills as a tool in the diagnostics of pathological conditions in fish and pollution in the aquatic environment: a review. Veterinární Medicína. 2016;61(3):123-32. doi: 10.17221/8763-VETMED.

5. Cerqueira CCC, Fernandes MN. Gill tissue recovery after copper exposure and blood parameter responses in the tropical fish Prochilodus scrofa. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2002;52(2):83-91. doi: 10.1006/eesa.2002.2164.

Line 393-413: Fecundity part of discussion is extremely speculated. Have you found the leached amount of BPA or phthalates from MFs to be effective enough to induce these physiological changes in 21 days of exposure? This part of discussion needs to be rewritten minimize speculation if supporting evidence is not available.

Response: We agree with the reviewer that there is a certain amount of speculation in the linkage of fecundity to leached additives. Currently, our study shows a common biomarker of endocrine disruption in partial life cycle tests: changes in egg number [1-3]. Considering this was not observed in control fish and the MFs did not leave the digestive tract, we are assured that the effects we observed are related to chemicals present within the MFs. The highest amount of speculation is not in the presence/absence of chemicals in MFs, but rather which chemicals were present and leached. As such, we present plausible mechanistic interpretations based on available literature of release rates and laboratory exposures using single chemicals (of which BPA is the most studied) or simple mixtures.

A hazardous substance that remains within plastic has a lower risk; it needs to be leached/released/emitted for toxicity to occur [4]. This can occur in all phases of a plastic’s life cycle, in a variety of media, and can depend on the composition of non-polymeric substances [4]. However, determination of type and magnitude of leaching is complex as it depends on a multitude of factors [4]. Several substances have been studied for release including phthalates and bisphenols. Studies of single plasticizers have reported biological effects at ng/L or µg/L concentrations [5]. In the gastrointestinal tract, release rates are high, especially for species with longer gut retention times, such as fish [6]. Laboratory studies have shown fish can retain microplastics in their digestive tracts anywhere from 3 to 14 days after cessation of exposure [7-9]. Even low doses of these chemicals can disrupt endocrine systems [10], and their presence as mixtures present complications and shown to fit with concentration addition expectations for endocrine disruptors in fish [11].

It should be noted that most studies have been done with pristine microspheres or fragments. There is a lack of data about the actual content of additives in textiles in the common market, primarily due to difficulties in obtaining information from producers on substances used during manufacturing [12]. For example, benzotriazoles (BTris), abundant in clothing textiles, are persistent in the environment and are known to have bioaccumulative properties [12]. Following aqueous exposure to BTris (0.01-1 mg/L) for 4 or 35 days, adult marine medaka (Oryzias melastigma) had induced vitellogenin (VTG) gene expression in liver, gills, and gut of both sexes, down-regulated CYP1A1 gene expression levels in liver and gut, and induced CYP19a expression in ovaries [13]. Those results indicate BTris is an endocrine disruptor in that VTG production is estrogen dependent, many estrogenic chemicals have been reported to inhibit CYP1A1, and CYP19a is involved the control of various physiological functions of estrogens [13]. Importantly, the exposure duration of 35 d, similar to our 21 d, showed responses that a shorter exposure (4 d) did not. This lends support to our contention.

Knowing the wide range of chemicals that were likely present in the MFs used in this study, we purposefully designed the experiment so that tissues could be analyzed for chemicals that would be used to explain the responses we observed. Currently, we are identifying compounds present in the MFs used in this study and their leaching rates so that they can be compared to these collected tissues. Due the complexity of the chemical analyses and the large volume of data it is producing, we have decided to publish it as a follow-up to this study. We have integrated several of the above sentences into the Discussion (TC425-440,449-463; M414-427,436-445) to clarify this issue.

1. Ankley GT, Johnson RD. Small fish models for identifying and assessing the effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Ilar J. 2004;45(4):469-83. PubMed PMID: WOS:000224480300010.

2. Denslow N, Sepúlveda M. Ecotoxicological effects of endocrine disrupting compounds on fish reproduction. In: Babin PJ, Cerdà J, Lubzens E, editors. The Fish Oocyte: From Basic Studies to Biotechnological Applications. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2007. p. 255-322.

3. OECD. Detailed review paper on fish screening assays for the detection of endocrine active substances. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development; 2004.

4. Hahladakis JN, Velis CA, Weber R, Iacovidou E, Purnell P. An overview of chemical additives present in plastics: Migration, release, fate and environmental impact during their use, disposal and recycling. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2018;344:179-99. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2017.10.014.

5. Oehlmann J, Schulte-Oehlmann U, Kloas W, Jagnytsch O, Lutz I, Kusk KO, et al. A critical analysis of the biological impacts of plasticizers on wildlife. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2009;364(1526):2047-62. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0242. PubMed PMID: PMC2873012.

6. Koelmans AA, Besseling E, Foekema EM. Leaching of plastic additives to marine organisms. Environmental Pollution. 2014;187:49-54. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.12.013.

7. Ory NC, Gallardo C, Lenz M, Thiel M. Capture, swallowing, and egestion of microplastics by a planktivorous juvenile fish. Environmental Pollution. 2018;240:566-73. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.04.093.

8. Cong Y, Jin F, Tian M, Wang J, Shi H, Wang Y, et al. Ingestion, egestion and post-exposure effects of polystyrene microspheres on marine medaka (Oryzias melastigma). Chemosphere. 2019;228:93-100. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.04.098.

9. Zhu M, Chernick M, Rittschof D, Hinton DE. Chronic Dietary Exposure to Polystyrene Microplastics in Maturing Japanese Medaka (Oryzias latipes). Aquatic Toxicology. 2019;in press.

10. Vandenberg LN, Colborn T, Hayes TB, Heindel JJ, Jacobs DR, Jr., Lee D-H, et al. Hormones and endocrine-disrupting chemicals: Low-dose effects and nonmonotonic dose responses. Endocrine Reviews. 2012;33(3):378-455. doi: 10.1210/er.2011-1050.

11. Kortenkamp A. Ten years of mixing cocktails: A review of combination effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Environ Health Perspect. 2007;115:98-105. doi: 10.1289/ehp.9357. PubMed PMID: WOS:000207172600015.

12. Avagyan R, Luongo G, Thorsén G, Östman C. Benzothiazole, benzotriazole, and their derivates in clothing textiles—a potential source of environmental pollutants and human exposure. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2015;22(8):5842-9. doi: 10.1007/s11356-014-3691-0.

13. Tangtian H, Bo L, Wenhua L, Shin PKS, Wu RSS. Estrogenic potential of benzotriazole on marine medaka (Oryzias melastigma). Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2012;80:327-32. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2012.03.020.

How about the possibility for loading of other chemical contaminants into the body together with microfibers ingestion in a natural situation? Addition of this information would strengthen the quality of this manuscript.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion.

Several dyes and chemicals used in the manufacture of textiles have been shown to be acutely toxic [1, 2] or carcinogenic [3]. However, there are knowledge gaps as to MF behavior in the environment [4]. The concepts of capacity, delivery, and resorption of various compounds are appearing with increasing frequency in the literature. Adding to the complexity of microplastic chemistry is predicting and interpreting sorption of metals, flame retardants, plasticizers, organic pollutants, and other compounds to plastics in the environment [5-9]. Moreover, plastics have the capacity to sorp organic molecules with increasing lipophilicity [10, 11], a property with potentially large biological implications. Once in the environment and following ingestion, dyes and additives can leach [12] and any sorped compounds can desorp [13, 14] within the digestive tract. Teasing apart effects of sorped contaminants in addition to mechanical damages caused by particles and physiological changes from plastic additives is extremely complex. For this reason, we emphasize the need to include pristine plastic controls in future studies investigating effects of other contaminants.

We have integrated this information into the Discussion (TC464-477; M446-459).

1. Athira N, Jaya DS. The use of fish biomarkers for assessing textile effluent contamination of aquatic ecosystems: a review. Nature Environment and Pollution Technology. 2018;17(1):25-34. PubMed PMID: 2016346742.

2. Selvaraj D, Leena R, Kamal D. Toxicological and histopathological impacts of textile dyeing industry effluent on a selected teleost fish Poecilia reticulata. Asian Journal of Pharmacology and Toxicology. 2015;3(10):26-30.

3. Lithner D, Larsson Å, Dave G. Environmental and health hazard ranking and assessment of plastic polymers based on chemical composition. Science of The Total Environment. 2011;409(18):3309-24. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.04.038.

4. Barrows APW, Cathey SE, Petersen CW. Marine environment microfiber contamination: Global patterns and the diversity of microparticle origins. Environmental Pollution. 2018;237:275-84. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.02.062.

5. Brennecke D, Duarte B, Paiva F, Caçador I, Canning-Clode J. Microplastics as vector for heavy metal contamination from the marine environment. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 2016;178:189-95. doi: 10.1016/j.ecss.2015.12.003.

6. Rochman CM. The complex mixture, fate and toxicity of chemicals associated with plastic debris in the marine environment. In: Bergmann M, Gutow L, Klages M, editors. Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2015. p. 117-40.

7. Rochman CM, Hoh E, Hentschel BT, Kaye S. Long-term field measurement of sorption of organic contaminants to five types of plastic pellets: Implications for plastic marine debris. Environmental Science & Technology. 2013;47(3):1646-54. doi: 10.1021/es303700s.

8. Turner A, Holmes LA. Adsorption of trace metals by microplastic pellets in fresh water. Environmental Chemistry. 2015;12(5):600-10. doi: 10.1071/EN14143.

9. Bakir A, Rowland SJ, Thompson RC. Competitive sorption of persistent organic pollutants onto microplastics in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2012;64(12):2782-9. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.09.010.

10. Lee H, Shim WJ, Kwon J-H. Sorption capacity of plastic debris for hydrophobic organic chemicals. Science of The Total Environment. 2014;470-471:1545-52. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.08.023.

11. Hüffer T, Hofmann T. Sorption of non-polar organic compounds by micro-sized plastic particles in aqueous solution. Environmental Pollution. 2016;214:194-201. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.04.018.

12. Suhrhoff TJ, Scholz-Böttcher BM. Qualitative impact of salinity, UV radiation and turbulence on leaching of organic plastic additives from four common plastics — A lab experiment. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2016;102(1):84-94. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.11.054.

13. Turner A. Mobilisation kinetics of hazardous elements in marine plastics subject to an avian physiologically-based extraction test. Environmental Pollution. 2018;236:1020-6. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.01.023.

14. Anbumani S, Kakkar P. Ecotoxicological effects of microplastics on biota: a review. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2018;25(15):14373–96. doi: 10.1007/s11356-018-1999-x.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Aldo Corriero

19 Feb 2020

Chronic microfiber exposure in adult Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes)

PONE-D-19-29596R1

Dear Dr. Hinton,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Aldo Corriero, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of all the reviewers' and Editors' comments and congratulations for the high quality of the revised manuscript.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I'm happy with the reviewers decision to use PES, but I just want to note that PET, polyethlyene terephthalate and polyester are synonymous.

Reviewer #2: Authors have revised the manuscript very carefully and elegantly. I do not have any further comments.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Aldo Corriero

26 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-29596R1

Chronic microfiber exposure in adult Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes)

Dear Dr. Hinton:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Aldo Corriero

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Standard curves.

    Different concentrations of PP (A) and PES (C) MFs dispersed in 10 mL 70% ethanol. Standard curves of PP (B) and PES (D) MFs.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Fig

    Body weights of female (A) and male (B) medaka before (light grey bars) and after exposure (dark grey bars). Medaka were exposed to 0 (Control), PP, or PES MFs for 21 days (n = 18). Data are presented as means ±SD. Mann-Whitney U-test and Wilcoxon tests were used to determine the differences in the body weight of medaka among different treatment groups and between before and after exposure, respectively. # p < 0.05, ## p < 0.01.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Fig. Embryo survival and hatching.

    Survival rate (A-C) and hatching percent (D-F) of embryos collected at day 7 (A, D), 14 (B, E) and 21 (C, F). Data are presented as means, n = 5–9 tanks. PP, Polypropylene MFs; PES, Polyester MFs.

    (DOCX)

    S4 Fig

    Malformation rates of larvae at 14 days post fertilization (dpf) from control, PP, and polyester PES MFs for 7 (A), 14 (B) and 21 (C) days. Data are presented as medians, n = 5–9 tanks.

    (DOCX)

    S5 Fig. Body lengths of larvae.

    Body length at 14 days post fertilization (dpf) larvae exposed to MFs for 14 and 21 days. Data are presented as medians ± SD, n = 5–9 tanks.

    (DOCX)

    S6 Fig. Histological micrographs of MF distribution in medaka.

    H&E stained sections of mouth (A), buccal cavity (B) and pharynx near teeth (C) from control fish. H&E stained sections of mouth (D), buccal cavity with high magnification inset of MF (E), pharynx near teeth with high magnification inset of MF (F), gill filaments with high magnification inset of MF in direct contact with outgrowths on secondary lamella (G) and gut (H) from PES-exposed fish. AB-PAS stained sections of gut (I) from PP-exposed fish with wall of gut at bottom of field and gut lumen occupying middle to upper portions of field; PP MFs in negatively stained, clear spaces signifying former presence of MFs. Low and high magnification images with black arrows indicate MFs.

    (DOCX)

    S7 Fig

    AB-PAS stained histological sections in foregut after 21-day exposure to 0 (control; A-B), PES (C-D), or PP (E-F) MFs. (B, D, F) The higher magnification views of areas in the foregut indicated by squares in A, C, and D. Black arrows indicate goblet cells.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Table. Test concentrations.

    Mass concentration (mg/L) of PP and PES MFs at the test concentration of 10,000 microfibers/L used for this study.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Measurements of adult fish exposed to MFs for 21 days.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Data are held in a public repository. The raw data set file is available from the Figshare database (doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.10031471). All other data and figures are in the manuscript and its Supporting Information file.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES