ArticlePDF Available

Microplastics of different characteristics are incorporated into the larval cases of the freshwater caddisfly Lepidostoma basale


Abstract and Figures

Microplastics of different characteristics are incorporated into the larval cases of the freshwater caddisfly Lepidostoma basale Sonja M. Ehlers*, Werner Manz, Jochen H. E. Koop ABSTRACT: Plastic pollution is present in aquatic systems worldwide. While numerous studies investigate microplastic interactions with marine organisms, microplastic effects on freshwater organisms, especially insects, are rarely studied. Moreover, microplastic studies mainly focus on microplastic dietary uptake. The presence of microplastics in animal constructions, as commonly known from macroplastics incorporated into birds' nests, is largely unknown. So far, microplastics have only been observed in the tubes of a marine polychaete species. In freshwater systems, common caddisfly (Trichoptera) larvae build cases by using larval silk and mineral grains from benthic sediments that are at the same time known as microplastic sinks. Therefore, we examined caddisfly cases for microplastic presence. We collected caddisfly cases in the field, disintegrated them using hydrogen peroxide, and determined microplastic polymer type through micro-Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (µFTIR). We found primary and secondary microplastics of different shapes, colors, sizes and chemical compositions (e.g., polypropylene, polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride). Therefore, this is the first study to show that microplastics are present in the biological construction of a freshwater organism. Larval stages are usually more vulnerable than adult individuals, and microplastics can transport persistent organic pollutants and emit toxic leachates. In the caddisfly larval case, those substances are in close proximity to the sensitive larval body which may be harmful for the larva and may eventually impede its development. Furthermore, we discuss the potential of caddisfly larval cases to act as microplastic bioindicators in freshwater habitats.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Aquat Biol
Vol. 28: 67–77, 2019 Published July 11
Freshwater ecosystems worldwide, including
streams and rivers, are polluted with microplastic
debris (Eerkes-Medrano et al. 2015). Such micro -
plastics (plastic particles <5 mm, Moore 2008) vary in
shape (fragment, film, pellet [spherical], foam and
fiber; Free et al. 2014), color and chemical compo -
sition, and are classified as primary and secondary
microplastics (Cole et al. 2011). Primary microplastics
such as spherical microbeads are manufactured to be
of a very small size. These spheres have multiple
appli cations, e.g. as exfoliating agents in cosmetics,
and may reach the environment because waste water
treatment plants are often inefficient in removing
them (Rochman et al. 2015). In contrast, secondary
micro plastics, such as fragments, films and fibers, are
created when larger plastic debris becomes (e.g.
mechanically or photolytically) degraded into smaller
plastic pieces (Cole et al. 2011). Plastic items from
land-based sources can be transported to streams
and rivers by wind, rain drainage, waste water and
improper disposal of plastic waste (Duis & Coors
2016). The industrial mass production of plastics
© The authors 2019. Open Access under Creative Commons by
Attribution Licence. Use, distribution and reproduction are un -
restricted. Authors and original publication must be credited.
Publisher: Inter-Research ·
*Corresponding author:
Microplastics of different characteristics are
incorporated into the larval cases of the
freshwater caddisfly Lepidostoma basale
Sonja M. Ehlers1,2,*, Werner Manz2, Jochen H. E. Koop1
1Department of Animal Ecology, Federal Institute of Hydrology, 56068 Koblenz, Germany
2Institute for Integrated Natural Sciences, University of Koblenz-Landau, 56070 Koblenz, Germany
ABSTRACT: Plastic pollution is present in aquatic systems worldwide. While numerous studies
have investigated microplastic interactions with marine organisms, microplastic effects on fresh-
water organisms, especially insects, have been rarely studied. Previous studies have mainly focused
on dietary uptake of microplastics, but the presence of microplastics in animal constructions is
largely unknown. To date, microplastics have only been observed in the tubes of a marine poly-
chaete species. In freshwater systems, common caddisfly (Trichoptera) larvae build cases by using
larval silk and mineral grains from benthic sediments, which are known microplastic sinks. There-
fore, we examined caddisfly cases for microplastic presence. We collected caddisfly Lepidostoma
basale cases in the field, disintegrated them using hydrogen peroxide, and determined microplastic
polymer type through micro-Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy. We found primary and sec-
ondary microplastics of different shapes, colors, sizes and chemical compositions (e.g. poly propylene,
polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride). Thus, this is the first study to show that microplastics are present
in the biological construction of a freshwater organism. Larval stages are usually more vulnerable
than adult individuals, and microplastics can transport persistent organic pollutants and emit toxic
leachates. In the caddisfly larval case, those substances are in close proximity to the sensitive larval
body, which may be harmful for the larva and may eventually impede its development. We discuss
the potential of caddisfly larval cases to act as microplastic bioindicators in freshwater habitats.
KEY WORDS: Synthetic polymers · Freshwater insects · Trichoptera · Case construction · Stream
Aquat Biol 28: 67–77, 2019
started in the 1940s (Cole et al. 2011), and microplas-
tics were reported in the oceans as early as the 1970s
(Carpenter et al. 1972, Carpenter & Smith 1972).
Since then, numerous studies have examined the
impact of microplastics on marine organisms (Erren
et al. 2013, Wright et al. 2013, Egbeocha et al. 2018),
including vertebrates (Germanov et al. 2018) and
invertebrates (Cole et al. 2013, Kaposi et al. 2014).
Rivers are important sources of marine microplastics,
as they transport plastic debris from inland waters to
the ocean (Lebreton et al. 2017). Despite this impor-
tant pathway, freshwater microplastics have been
considerably less studied than microplastics in the
marine environment (Eerkes-Medrano et al. 2015).
Regarding the interactions of microplastics with
freshwater organisms, recent studies have mainly
focused on microplastic ingestion by vertebrates, e.g.
fish (Horton et al. 2018, McNeish et al. 2018), and
invertebrates, such as mollusks (Su et al. 2018) and
crustaceans (Weber et al. 2018), and on the resulting
physiological effects (Ding et al. 2018, Redondo-
Hasselerharm et al. 2018). Despite the great abun-
dance and ecological importance of aquatic insects
(Suter & Cormier 2015), microplastic studies on those
organisms are just emerging and largely focus on
micro plastic dietary uptake (Kim et al. 2018, Nel et
al. 2018, Windsor et al. 2019).
Besides microplastic ingestion, microplastics may
be incorporated into the structures built by animals.
For instance, the marine tube-building polychaete
Gun na rea gaimardi (Quatrefages, 1848) incorporates
microplastics into its housing (Nel & Froneman 2018),
and thereby fixes microplastic particles in a biologi-
cal construction. Similar biological structures in fresh-
water habitats are larval cases that several epi benthic
caddisfly (Trichoptera) species build. It has recently
been suggested that microplastics may be fixed in
caddisfly larval cases, but no analysis such as micro-
Fourier-transform infrared (µFTIR) spectro scopy has
been performed to verify that the particles which
were observed in caddisfly larval cases were micro-
plastics and that they were not, for example, parts of
ceramics or cardboard (Tibbetts et al. 2018). Hence,
to investigate if freshwater microplastics may be in -
corporated into caddisfly larval cases, we analyzed
whether microplastics are present in those cases and
which characteristics (shape, polymer type, color,
size) such microplastics possess.
After hatching from the eggs, the larvae of many
caddisfly species start building cases to protect them-
selves from predators (Boyero et al. 2006) and from
environmental influences (Zamora Muñoz & Svens-
son 1996). As the larvae grow, new material is added
to the anterior end of the case and secured with silk
filaments produced by the larvae (Stewart & Wang
2010). For case building, caddisfly larvae actively
collect different biotic (e.g. leaves; Sheath et al. 1995,
Moretti et al. 2009) and abiotic (e.g. sediment grains;
Gaino et al. 2002, Okano et al. 2012) materials, and
some species use both material types (Hansell 1972).
Different caddisfly species differ in their preferences
for certain case-building materials (Hanna 1961).
Recently, a few potential sentinel species for micro -
plastic pollution in freshwater ecosystems have been
suggested, including tadpoles (Hu et al. 2018) and
Asian clams (Su et al. 2018), but none has been estab-
lished so far. Therefore, we discuss the potential role
of caddisfly larval cases as bioindicators for fresh-
water microplastics which might facilitate microplas-
tic assessment in streams and rivers.
Given that a marine polychaete species incorpo-
rates microplastics into its tube (Nel & Froneman
2018), and freshwater sediments are a sink for micro -
plas tics (Castañeda et al. 2014), we hypothesized that
microplastics would be fixed in the larval cases of the
caddisfly Lepidostoma basale, which uses sediment
grains for case building (Skuja 2010). We tested our
hypothesis through an observational field study.
2.1. Study site
We conducted our study in the Saynbach stream
(50.438399°N, 7.5732430°E), located in the Schloss-
park Sayn, a public park in the town of Bendorf
(Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany). This stream origi-
nates in Himburg (Rhineland-Palatinate) and flows
directly into the Rhine River. The stream has a length
of 43.7 km, a width of 3 to 4 m, a depth of 6 to 40 cm
and a catchment area of 219 km2(Beckmann et al.
2005). Downstream of our study site in the Schloss-
park Sayn, the Saynbach passes the Bendorf waste-
water treatment plant before leading into the Rhine.
The abiotic conditions of the Saynbach are regu-
larly measured by the Rhineland-Palatinate State
Office for the Environment (Landesamt für Umwelt)
at a nearby location (50.429° N, 7.565°E). On 10 April
2018 at 15:40 h Central European Summer Time (1 d
before we collected caddisfly larvae; see Section 2.2),
water temperature was 13.6°C, turbidity was 8 for-
mazin nephelometric units, pH was 8.4, conductivity
(at 20°C) was 264 µS cm−1, and oxygen concentration
was 10.9 mg l−1. The Saynbach sediment at the study
site consisted of sand and fine gravel.
Ehlers et al.: Microplastics in caddisfly larval cases
2.2. Caddisfly larvae collection and identification
On 11 April 2018, we manually collected case-
bearing caddisfly larvae in individual glass vials
(Wheaton, DWK Life Sciences) that contained 70%
ethanol. All larvae were collected at random and
had intact cases. To avoid airborne microplastic con-
tamination of the larvae, we wore cotton clothes.
Furthermore, the vials used for sampling were previ-
ously rinsed with ultrapure water.
At the lab, we identified 29 of the 30 caddisfly
larvae as Lepidostoma basale (Kolenati, 1848) under a
bin ocular microscope according to morphological
species keys (Wallace et al. 1990, Waringer & Graf
2011). This caddisfly (former synonym: Lasiocephala
ba sa lis) occurs in streams and rivers across Europe
(Moretti et al. 1981, Beisel et al. 1998, Hoffmann 2000,
Chadd & Extence 2004, Bonada et al. 2008, Skuja
2010, Verdonschot et al. 2010). It lives on woody de-
bris, shows facultative xylophagy (Hoffmann & Hering
2000) and feeds on biofilms (Schulte et al. 2003).
L. basale larvae can feed on invertebrates (Schulte et
al. 2003) and leaf litter (Hoffmann 2000). Annual
L. basale development proceeds through 5 larval
stages and 1 pupal stage (Verdonschot et al. 2010). In
all larval stages (i.e. instars), L. basale constructs min-
eral cases (Skuja 2010); in the fifth-instar larva, the
case has a maximum length of ca. 1.5 cm (Hoffmann
2000). In L. basale, individuals of different larval stages
(and thereby of different sizes) can be found simul tan -
eously at the same location (Verdonschot et al. 2010).
We identified the remaining caddisfly larva as
either Sericostoma personatum (Spence in Kirby &
Spence, 1826) or Sericostoma flavicorne Schneider,
1845, whose taxonomic differentiation is not fully
understood (Waringer 1987, Malicky 2005), but has
recently been clarified to some extent by genetical
analyses (Weigand et al. 2017). S. personatum larvae
are detritivore-shredders that feed on leaves (Friberg
& Jacobsen 1999). As we only found 1 individual of
this species, we present information on microplastics
in its larval case as an additional observation but
focus on the larval cases of L. basale.
2.3. Preparation of caddisfly larval cases
We measured caddisfly larval case length along the
convex case side using a digital microscope (VHX-
2000, Keyence). We then removed the larvae from
their cases using metal forceps. To remove any parti-
cles that adhered to the case surface but were not
fixed in the case matrix, we carefully rinsed all cases
in ultrapure water and put them into individual glass
Petri dishes. Next, we dried the cases at 40°C for 4 h
in a drying cabinet and immediately measured their
dry weight using an analytical balance (XS205 Dual-
Range Analytical Balance, Mettler Toledo).
To prevent microplastic contamination, we thor-
oughly cleaned all lab surfaces and glassware us ing
70% ethanol and ultrapure water before starting lab-
work. Furthermore, to prevent microplastic cross-
contamination between the caddisfly larval cases, we
carefully rinsed our forceps between samples. Finally,
to prevent airborne microplastic contamination, we
immediately covered all Petri dishes containing cad-
disfly larval cases with aluminum foil.
2.4. Caddisfly larval case oxidation and
density separation
For case disintegration, we transferred all rinsed
caddisfly larval cases into individual glass beakers in
which we submerged each case in 20 ml of a hydro-
gen peroxide solution (34.5−36.5% H2O2) to disinte-
grate them and remove any organic substances pres-
ent. All beakers were then covered with parafilm and
left on a shaking table at 150 rpm for 7 d until the
cases were completely disintegrated. Nuelle et al.
(2014) previously showed that such H2O2solutions
can successfully reduce organics in sediment sample
matrices similar to caddisfly case matrices. Occasion-
ally, stirring the samples with a glass rod can help in
case disintegration. We ran blanks parallel to the
case disintegration and scanned them for microplas-
tics, but did not detect any parafilm or microplastic
particles in the blanks. However, we found natural
fibers in the blanks which we identified using µFTIR.
After case disintegration, we separated the result-
ing minerals from the microplastics through density
separation. To do so, we transferred each sample to a
glass separation funnel to which we added potassium
formate (99%) until the solution was saturated at
about 1.6 g ml−1, a similar approach to that used to
separate microplastics from sediment grains in sedi-
ment samples (Zhang et al. 2016). Again, we ran
blanks with the density separation to exclude micro-
plastic contamination from, for example, the lid of the
container in which the potassium formate was stored.
After ap proximately 3 h, the mineral grains had set-
tled to the bottom of the funnel. We then drained the
grains and filtered the supernatant onto aluminum
oxide filters (Ano disc filter; pore size 0.2 µm; diame-
ter 47 mm, What man) using a pressure filtration unit
(model 16249, Sartorius). We chose these filters to en -
Aquat Biol 28: 67–77, 2019
able µFTIR measurements in transmission mode dur-
ing further microplastic analyses (Löder et al. 2015).
We placed the filters in small aluminum bowls, cov-
ered them with aluminum foil and placed them in a
drying cabinet (50°C) for 2 d. We then visually in -
spected each filter for microplastics using a digital
microscope (VHX-2000, Keyence) and identified all
microplastics by their unnatural color and shape
(Hidalgo-Ruz et al. 2012). The shapes for microplastic
particle classification were sphere, film (thin and
small layer), fragment (part of a larger plastic item)
and fiber (Su et al. 2016, 2018). We recorded the oc -
currence of microplastics and measured their dimen-
sions (maximum length of fragments, films and
fibers, and the diameter of the spheres).
2.5. µFTIR analyses of microplastics found in
caddisfly larval cases
We manually analyzed all microplastics found in the
L. basale cases using a Hyperion 2000 FTIR micro-
scope equipped with a mercury-cadmium telluride
detector (Bruker) in a wavenumber range of 4000−
600 cm−1 with 32 co-added scans and a spectral reso-
lution of 4 cm−1. The software used was OPUS 7.5, and
we compared the obtained spectra with the Bruker
database. As in previous studies, only particles with a
hit quality of over 700 were considered as microplas-
tics (Bergmann et al. 2017). We analyzed the micro-
plastics using attenuated total reflectance (µATR)
with a germanium crystal and an ATR 20× objective.
For some particles that were difficult to analyze, we
used µATR and transmission mode (with a 15× infra -
red objective). For measurements in transmission
mode, the blank aluminum oxide filter was used for
background measurements. Measuring the blank fil-
ter material as a background in transmission meas-
urements is a common procedure for µFTIR measure-
ments in microplastics research (Löder et al. 2015).
2.6. Sediment and water samples
We manually collected 5 sediment samples within
meters of the caddisfly collection site using yellow
containers. As in previous studies, sediment was sam -
pled to a depth of ca. 10 cm and as little surface water
as possible was collected along with the sediment
(Tibbetts et al. 2018). At the laboratory, we freeze-
dried the wet sediment samples, a common pro cedure
in microplastic research (Matsuguma et al. 2017), and
took subsamples with a dry weight of 15.64 ± 0.17 g
(mean ± SE, n = 5 sediment subsamples, range: 15.16−
16.15 g). We then transferred each subsample to an
individual glass beaker which we covered with alu-
minum foil to avoid airborne microplastic contamina-
tion of our samples. To facilitate the sediment ana -
lysis, we digested organic matter using 20 ml 10 M
KOH and 20 ml H2O2(34.5−36.5%) on a shaking
table. The beakers were covered with parafilm, and
controls were run in parallel to the digestion. KOH
was then neutralized with formic acid, as aluminum
oxide membrane filters are sensitive to alkaline con-
ditions. Afterwards, sediment grains were separated
from microplastics using density separation with
potassium formate. Again, blanks were run during di-
gestion and density separation. Moreover, we took 4
water samples (again using yellow containers) with a
volume of 467.5 ± 11.09 ml (mean ± SE, n = 4 water
samples, range: 450− 500 ml) each close to the caddis-
fly collection site. In the laboratory, the water samples
were transferred to glass beakers and freeze-dried.
Afterwards, we digested organic materials inside the
suspended sediment fraction using 10 ml 10 M KOH
and 20 ml H2O2(34.5−36.5%), neutralized the KOH
with formic acid and performed density separation as
well as filtration onto aluminum oxide membrane fil-
ters. Again, no microplastic particles were found in
the blanks. After transferring the samples onto alu-
minum oxide membrane filters, sediment and water
microplastic loads were analyzed under the digital
microscope as well as under the µFTIR. Again, µFTIR
measurements were conducted using µATR, and only
particles with a hit quality greater than 700 were con-
sidered as microplastics. Furthermore, special care
was taken to avoid contact between the germanium
crystal and sand grains to prevent any damage to the
crystal. No yellow particles that might have come
from the containers for sediment and water sampling
were found inside the samples.
3.1. Microplastics in caddisfly cases
In Lepidostoma basale, the average larval case
length was 0.85 ± 0.04 cm (mean ± SE, n = 29 cases,
range: 0.65−1.40 cm) and average larval case dry
weight was 6.40 ± 0.63 mg (mean ± SE). The Sericos-
toma personatum/flavicorne larval case had a length
of 1.26 cm and a dry weight of 34.07 mg.
Out of the 29 L. basale larvae, 17 individuals (59%)
had microplastics of different shapes fixed into their
cases (Fig. 1). The average microplastic load per indi-
Ehlers et al.: Microplastics in caddisfly larval cases
vidual was 1.14 ± 0.28 microplastics per caddisfly lar-
val case (mean ± SE, n = 29 caddisfly larval cases,
range: 0−6 microplastics per individual case). The
average microplastic load was 0.36 ± 0.09 microplas-
tics mg−1 case dry weight (mean ± SE, n = 17 caddis-
fly larval cases, range: 0.07 − 1.44 microplastics mg−1
case dry weight). In the S. personatum/flavicorne
case we detected 2 polyamide (PA) microplastics.
µFTIR spectroscopy revealed that microplastics
in the L. basale cases consisted of the polymers poly -
pro py lene (PP), PA, acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene
(ABS), a blend of PA and ABS, polyacrylamide
(PAM), thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), vinyl ester
resin (VE), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyethylene
(PE) and polyester (Fig. 2). The microplastic particles
incorporated into the caddisfly cases also showed a
wide spectrum of colors (Fig. 3).
Furthermore, we found rayon, a cellulose-based,
semi-synthetic material, in the cases. It is debated as
to whether rayon should be counted as microplastic,
considering its highly processed structure and poten-
tial environmental effects (Song et al. 2015). In our
study, rayon was rare, so we did not consider it as a
The microplastic fragments had an average length
of 236.09 ± 33.44 µm (mean ± SE, n = 11 microplastic
fragments, range: 40−375 µm). The films had an
average length of 98.92 ± 18.57 µm (n = 12 films,
range: 27−191 µm). The plastic spheres had an aver-
age diameter of 91.20 ± 25.88 µm (n = 5 spheres,
range: 29−163 µm) and the microplastic fibers had an
average length of 1872.40 ± 1434.03 µm (n = 5 fibers,
range: 295−7601 µm).
Fig. 1. Relative amount (in %) of different microplastic shapes
(sphere, fiber, fragment, film) in Lepidostoma basale cases
(n = 17), sediment (n = 5 samples) and water (n = 4 samples)
Fig. 2. Relative amount (%) of microplastic polymer types
(PP: polypropylene; TPU: thermoplastic polyurethane; PAM:
poly acrylamide; PA: polyamide; ABS: acrylonitrile-butadi-
ene-styrene; PVC: polyvinyl chloride; VE: vinyl ester resin;
PE: poly ethylene) of microplastic fragments, films, spheres
and fibers found in Lepidostoma basale caddisfly cases
Fig. 3. Relative number (in %) of differently colored micro-
plastics found in Lepidostoma basale cases (n = 17), sedi-
ment (n = 5 samples) and water (n = 4 samples). Transp.:
Aquat Biol 28: 67–77, 2019
3.2. Analyses of sediment and water samples
The sediment subsamples had a microplastic load
of 0.09 ± 0.05 microplastics g−1 (mean ± SE, n = 5 sedi-
ment subsamples, range: 0−0.255 microplastics g−1).
Most of the sediment microplastics were fibers
(Fig. 1). According to µFTIR measurements, sediment
microplastics consisted of polyethylene, acryl and
polyester. The 4 water samples contained a micro-
plastic load of 0.003 ± 0.001 microplastics ml−1 (n = 4
water samples, range: 0.002−0.007 microplastics ml−1).
Among these microplastics, we found urea form alde -
hyde resin and silicone rubber.
In our study, we found primary (spheres) as well as
secondary (fibers, films, fragments) microplastics in -
corporated into the larval cases of Lepidostoma basa -
le. The spheres accounted for 15.2% of the micro-
plastics found and resemble those that are commonly
used in cosmetics (Tanaka & Takada 2016). In con-
trast, secondary microplastics, such as the fragments,
films and fibers in the caddisfly cases, are created
when larger plastic debris becomes degraded into
smaller plastic pieces (Cole et al. 2011). The L. basale
individuals that we analyzed had primary and sec-
ondary microplastics of different shapes, polymer
types, sizes and colors fixed in their cases (see Figs. A1
& A2 in the Appendix). Those results were verified by
µFTIR analysis, a crucial step in microplastic analysis,
as up to 70% of particles found in the environment can
visually be misidentified as microplastics (Hidalgo-
Ruz et al. 2012). Hence, we showed that freshwater
microplastics of different characteristics are incorpo-
rated into L. basale larval cases.
As caddisfly larval cases contain material available
in the water body the larva inhabits, the microplas-
tics found inside the L. basale case matrix in this
study must be a subset of the microplastics sus-
pended in the Saynbach. Thus, caddisfly case analy-
sis may provide information on the diversity of micro-
plastics present in a caddisfly’s habitat. Inside the
caddisfly larval case matrix, the microplastic parti-
cles are fixed with silk, and mineral cases show a par-
ticularly high stability (Otto & Svensson 1980). As L.
basale mineral cases contain a low fraction of organic
material and lower amounts of sand grains than sed-
iment samples, a filter resulting from the caddisfly
case processing is easier to visually analyze than a
filter with a sediment microplastic fraction. The latter
is often characterized by not fully digested organic
residues and small sand grains which could not fully
be removed by density separation (Mathalon & Hill
2014). For instance, we found a small yellow PP
sphere with a diameter of 43 µm and a small orange
PP film with a length of 73 µm in the caddisfly cases
(see Fig. A1F) which might have been easily over-
looked in visual sediment analysis due to their simi-
larity to sediment sand grains.
The disintegration of the cases enabled us to ana-
lyze all microplastics present in the caddisfly cases.
Some microplastics which might have been part of
the inner case wall or were previously covered by
sediment grains inside the case matrix (see Fig. A3 in
the Appendix) would have been overlooked without
dissolving the cases. Also, the usage of the digital
microscope al lowed us to record microplastic par ticles
which are normally not visible to the naked eye.
Nuelle et al. (2014) showed thata7dlongtreatment
with 35% H2O2successfully digests organic materials
but might lead to color and size loss in some polymer
types. The strong colors of the microplastics that we
found in the caddisfly cases (see Fig. A1) suggest that
there was no bleaching of microplastics due to the
usage of H2O2, perhaps aided by microplastic protec-
tion inside the caddisfly case matrix during digestion.
The cases exhibited microplastics with a range of
chemical compositions (PE, PP, TPU, PA, PAM, VE,
PVC, ABS, polyester). Low-density microplastics such
as ABS (density 1.02−1.07 g cm−3) can float in the wa-
ter column (McCormick et al. 2016), whereas high-
density microplastics such as PVC (density ca. 1.20−
1.45 g cm−3, Avio et al. 2017) are denser than fresh-
water and accumulate in sediments (Wright et al.
2013). In the caddisfly cases, we found not only plas-
tics with high densities such as PVC, but also micro-
plastics with low density such as ABS, PE (density
0.93− 0.98 g cm−3, Avio et al. 2017) and PP (density
0.89− 0.91 g cm−3, Avio et al. 2017). Hence, it is likely
that factors such as turbulence (McCormick et al.
2016) or an increase in microplastic density caused by
a biofilm cover (Lagarde et al. 2016, Rummel et al.
2017) led to low-density microplastic sedimentation
and made it available for caddisfly larvae. Similarly,
we found PE in the sediment samples. The fact that
the sediment samples showed higher microplastic
loads than the water samples corroborates that the
microplastics in the sampled caddisfly cases stem
from the stream sediments. However, as water flows
through the caddisfly case (Williams et al. 1987), it
cannot be ruled out that some microplastics inside the
caddisfly case may come from the water column. The
fact that the microplastic load in the caddisfly cases
was higher than in the sediment and water samples
Ehlers et al.: Microplastics in caddisfly larval cases
indicates that caddisfly cases may act as microplastic
sinks in freshwater habitats.
The µFTIR analysis revealed that a high proportion
of the microplastics were made of PP and that many
spheres consisted of PE, which are the most com-
monly used plastics (Zhang et al. 2016). They serve
as material for different single-use items such as
plastic bags, bottle caps and drinking straws which
are used in high quantities and regularly accumulate
in the environment after disposal (Andrady 2011).
Our results suggest that the plastic types which are
most frequently used, and are therefore probably the
most prevalent in the environment, are incorporated
into caddisfly cases. This finding implies that caddis-
fly cases may potentially be used as quantitative
bioindicators for microplastics. However, future stud-
ies should test the potential of caddisfly larval cases
as quantitative freshwater microplastic bioindicators
by comparing microplastic loads in caddisfly cases
from streams differing in plastic pollution. Further-
more, future studies could examine if microplastic
loads in caddisfly larval cases may change according
to seasonal flow rates. For instance, amounts of
microplastics ingested by chironomid larvae show
the same seasonal fluctuations as sediment micro-
plastic loads (Nel et al. 2018).
In our study, the only polymers which we found in
the caddisfly cases as well as in the sediment samples
were PE and polyester, suggesting that L. basale
cases may have the potential to act as qualitative
microplastic bioindicators. The reason why we did
not find more similarities between microplastics in
caddisfly cases and in the sediment and water sam-
ples may be the limited number of specimens from
just 1 species which was analyzed in our study. Dif-
ferent caddisfly species use different case building
materials and may therefore more likely represent
the variety of microplastics present in their habitats
when analyzed together.
In our study, all sediment and water microplastic
shapes were reflected in the L. basale cases. How-
ever, microplastic spheres were only found in the
caddisfly cases and not in the sediment and water
samples. An explanation for this may be that spheres
were present in the sediment and water samples, but
could not be detected as they were covered by
residues which are characteristic for filters from sedi -
ment and water samples. In the caddisfly cases, the
spheres were as small as 29 µm and were yellow or
transparent and colorless, which may further restrict
the chances of finding them on filters covered by
residues. Therefore, analyzing caddisfly cases might
help identify microplastics which are present in an
aquatic habitat but cannot easily be detected in sedi-
ment and water samples.
The disintegration of caddisfly cases used in our
study does not require extensive amounts of chemi-
cals and sieving and is therefore less costly and less
time consuming than sediment analyses (Klein et al.
2015). Hence, screening of caddisfly cases might be a
cost- and time-effective first step in assessing if
microplastics of different characteristics are present
in a freshwater habitat.
As the case-building larvae of some caddisfly spe-
cies occur in brackish and marine environments
(Haage 1968, Mouro et al. 2016), future studies
should investigate if their cases contain microplastics
and may thereby provide information on microplastic
characteristics in marine habitats. The fact that a
marine polychaete species (Nel & Froneman 2018)
and freshwater caddisfly larvae incorporate micro-
plastics inside their tube-like structures may indicate
a general microplastic fixation process present across
different ecosystems. Other freshwater organisms
such as dipterans also construct tube-like structures
(Brennan & McLachlan 1979), and in terrestrial sys-
tems, termites use soil particles for building mounds
which have sizes similar to the microplastics found in
our study (Jouquet et al. 2002). Furthermore, bag-
worm moth larvae construct self-enclosing bags
using organic and inorganic materials (Rhainds et al.
2009). These biological constructions could be ana-
lyzed for microplastics in future studies and poten-
tially provide information on ecosystem-wide pro-
cesses of microplastic fixation.
Future research should also examine the effects of
microplastics in insect constructions as indirect stres-
sors. As plastics often contain harmful additives (Her-
mabessiere et al. 2017), might increase the risk of
cancer (Erren et al. 2013) and may transport patho-
genic bacteria (McCormick et al. 2014), microplastics
in caddisfly cases may affect caddisfly larvae. For in -
stance, plastic leachates harm brown mussel larvae
(Gandara e Silva et al. 2016), and PVC (which was ob -
served in the caddisfly cases) leads to increased mor-
tality in barnacle larvae (Li et al. 2016). We conclude
that caddisfly larval cases may have the potential to
be used as freshwater microplastic bioindicators.
However, future studies should analyze micro plastic
contents of cases from different caddisfly species and
from habitats differing in plastic pollution levels.
Acknowledgements. We thank Georg Reifferscheid for pro-
viding the pressure filtration unit, and Friederike Stock and
Niklas Arendt (Department of Biochemistry and Ecotoxicol-
ogy, Federal Institute of Hydrology, BfG) for lab assistance,
Barbara Anderer and Esther Behring (Department of Animal
Aquat Biol 28: 67–77, 2019
Ecology, BfG) for caddisfly identification, Esther Behring for
field assistance and Bettina Salinus (Department of Animal
Ecology, BfG) for lab assistance. We also thank 4 anonymous
reviewers for their constructive comments on the original
manuscript. This research did not receive any specific grant
from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-
profit sectors.
Andrady AL (2011) Microplastics in the marine environ-
ment. Mar Pollut Bull 62: 1596−1605
Avio CG, Gorbi S, Regoli F (2017) Plastics and microplastics
in the oceans: from emerging pollutants to emerged
threat. Mar Environ Res 128: 2−11
Beckmann MC, Schöll F, Matthaei CD (2005) Effects of
increased flow in the main stem of the River Rhine on the
invertebrate communities of its tributaries. Freshw Biol
50: 10−26
Beisel JN, Usseglio-Polatera P, Thomas S, Moreteau JC
(1998) Stream community structure in relation to spatial
variation: the influence of mesohabitat characteristics.
Hydrobiologia 389: 73−88
Bergmann M, Wirzberger V, Krumpen T, Lorenz C, Primpke
S, Tekman MB, Gerdts G (2017) High quantities of
microplastic in Arctic deep-sea sediments from the
HAUSGARTEN Observatory. Environ Sci Technol 51:
Bonada N, Zamora-Muñoz C, El Alami M, Múrria C, Prat N
(2008) New records of Trichoptera in reference Mediter-
ranean-climate rivers of the Iberian peninsula and North
of Africa: taxonomical, faunistical and ecological aspects.
Graellsia 64: 189−208
Boyero L, Rincón PA, Bosch J (2006) Case selection by a lim-
nephilid caddisfly [Potamophylax latipennis (Curtis)] in
response to different predators. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 59:
Brennan A, McLachlan AJ (1979) Tubes and tube-building in
a lotic Chironomid (Diptera) community. Hydrobiologia
67: 173−178
Carpenter EJ, Smith KL Jr (1972) Plastics on the Sargasso
Sea surface. Science 175: 1240−1241
Carpenter EJ, Anderson SJ, Harvey GR, Miklas HP, Peck BB
(1972) Polystyrene spherules in coastal waters. Science
178: 749−750
Castañeda RA, Avlijas S, Simard MA, Ricciardi A (2014)
Microplastic pollution in St. Lawrence river sediments.
Can J Fish Aquat Sci 71: 1767−1771
Chadd R, Extence C (2004) The conservation of freshwater
macroinvertebrate populations: a community-based clas-
sification scheme. Aquat Conserv 14: 597−624
Cole M, Lindeque P, Halsband C, Galloway TS (2011)
Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environ-
ment: a review. Mar Pollut Bull 62: 2588−2597
Cole M, Lindeque P, Fileman E, Halsband C, Goodyear R,
Moger J, Galloway TS (2013) Microplastic ingestion by
zooplankton. Environ Sci Technol 47: 6646−6655
Ding J, Zhang S, Razanajatovo RM, Zou H, Zhu W (2018) Ac -
cu mulation, tissue distribution, and biochemical effects of
polystyrene microplastics in the freshwater fish red
tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Environ Pollut 238: 1−9
Duis K, Coors A (2016) Microplastics in the aquatic and ter-
restrial environment: sources (with a specific focus on
personal care products), fate and effects. Environ Sci Eur
28: 2
Eerkes-Medrano D, Thompson RC, Aldridge DC (2015)
Microplastics in freshwater systems: a review of the
emerging threats, identification of knowledge gaps and
prioritisation of research needs. Water Res 75: 63−82
Egbeocha CO, Malek S, Emenike CU, Milow P (2018) Feast-
ing on microplastics: ingestion by and effects on marine
organisms. Aquat Biol 27: 93−106
Erren T, Zeuß D, Steffany F, Meyer-Rochow VB (2013)
Oceans of plastics: possible risks of cancer in marine
wildlife and humans. In: Allodi S, Nazari EM (eds) Explor-
ing themes on aquatic toxicology. Research Signpost,
Trivandrum, p 51−74
Free CM, Jensen OP, Mason SA, Eriksen M, Williamson NJ,
Boldgiv B (2014) High-levels of microplastic pollution in a
large, remote, mountain lake. Mar Pollut Bull 85: 156−163
Friberg N, Jacobsen D (1999) Variation in growth of the
detritivore-shredder Sericostoma personatum (Tri-
choptera). Freshw Biol 42: 625−635
Gaino E, Cianficconi F, Rebora M, Todini B (2002) Case-
building of some Trichoptera larvae in experimental con-
ditions: selectivity for calcareous and siliceous grains. Ital
J Zool 69: 141−145
Gandara e Silva PP, Nobre CR, Resaffe P, Pereira CDS, Gus-
mão F (2016) Leachate from microplastics impairs larval
development in brown mussels. Water Res 106: 364−370
Germanov ES, Marshall AD, Bejder L, Fossi MC, Loneragan
NR (2018) Microplastics: no small problem for filter-feed-
ing megafauna. Trends Ecol Evol 33: 227−232
Haage P (1968) On the salinity tolerance of eggs and young
larvae of Phryganea grandis Linné (Trichoptera). Hydro-
biologia 32: 257−270
Hanna HM (1961) Selection of materials for case-building by
larvae of caddis flies (Trichoptera). Proc R Entomol Soc
Lond Ser A Gen Entomol 36: 37−47
Hansell MH (1972) Case building behaviour of the caddis fly
larva, Lepidostoma hirtum. J Zool 167: 179−192
Hermabessiere L, Dehaut A, Paul-Pont I, Lacroix C, Jeze-
quel R, Soudant P, Duflos G (2017) Occurrence and effects
of plastic additives on marine environments and organ-
isms: a review. Chemosphere 182: 781−793
Hidalgo-Ruz V, Gutow L, Thompson RC, Thiel M (2012)
Microplastics in the marine environment: a review of the
methods used for identification and quantification. Envi-
ron Sci Technol 46: 3060−3075
Hoffmann A (2000) The association of the stream caddisfly
Lasiocephala basalis (KOL.) (Trichoptera: Lepidostomati-
dae) with wood. Int Rev Hydrobiol 85: 79−93
Hoffmann A, Hering D (2000) Wood-associated macroinver-
tebrate fauna in central European streams. Int Rev
Hydrobiol 85: 25−48
Horton AA, Jürgens MD, Lahive E, van Bodegom PM, Vijver
MG (2018) The influence of exposure and physiology on
microplastic ingestion by the freshwater fish Rutilus
rutilus (roach) in the River Thames, UK. Environ Pollut
236: 188−194
Hu L, Chernick M, Hinton DE, Shi H (2018) Microplastics in
small waterbodies and tadpoles from Yangtze River
Delta, China. Environ Sci Technol 52: 8885−8893
Jouquet P, Lepage M, Velde B (2002) Termite soil prefer-
ences and particle selections: strategies related to eco-
logical requirements. Insectes Soc 49: 1−7
Kaposi KL, Mos B, Kelaher BP, Dworjanyn SA (2014) Inges-
tion of microplastic has limited impact on a marine larva.
Environ Sci Technol 48: 1638−1645
Kim SW, Kim D, Chae Y, An YJ (2018) Dietary uptake, bio -
Ehlers et al.: Microplastics in caddisfly larval cases
distribution, and depuration of microplastics in the fresh-
water diving beetle Cybister japonicus: effects on preda-
cious behavior. Environ Pollut 242: 839−844
Klein S, Worch E, Knepper TP (2015) Occurrence and spatial
distribution of microplastics in river shore sediments of
the Rhine-Main area in Germany. Environ Sci Technol
49: 6070−6076
Lagarde F, Olivier O, Zanella M, Daniel P, Hiard S, Caruso
A (2016) Microplastic interactions with freshwater micro-
algae: heteroaggregation and changes in plastic density
appear strongly dependent on polymer type. Environ
Pollut 215: 331−339
Lebreton LCM, van der Zwet J, Damsteeg JW, Slat B,
Andrady A, Reisser J (2017) River plastic emissions to the
world’s oceans. Nat Commun 8: 15611
Li HX, Getzinger GJ, Ferguson PL, Orihuela B, Zhu M,
Rittschof D (2016) Effects of toxic leachate from commer-
cial plastics on larval survival and settlement of the bar-
nacle Amphibalanus amphitrite. Environ Sci Technol 50:
Löder MGJ, Kuczera M, Mintenig S, Lorenz C, Gerdts G
(2015) Focal plane array detector-based micro-Fourier-
transform infrared imaging for the analysis of microplas-
tics in environmental samples. Environ Chem 12: 563−581
Malicky H (2005) Ein kommentiertes Verzeichnis der
Köcherfliegen (Trichoptera) Europas und des Mediter-
rangebietes. Linz Biol Beitr 37: 533−596
Mathalon A, Hill P (2014) Microplastic fibers in the intertidal
ecosystem surrounding Halifax Harbor, Nova Scotia.
Mar Pollut Bull 81: 69−79
Matsuguma Y, Takada H, Kumata H, Kanke H and others
(2017) Microplastics in sediment cores from Asia and
Africa as indicators of temporal trends in plastic pollu-
tion. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 73: 230−239
McCormick A, Hoellein TJ, Mason SA, Schluep J, Kelly JJ
(2014) Microplastic is an abundant and distinct microbial
habitat in an urban river. Environ Sci Technol 48:
McCormick AR, Hoellein TJ, London MG, Hittie J, Scott JW,
Kelly JJ (2016) Microplastic in surface waters of urban
rivers: concentration, sources, and associated bacterial
assemblages. Ecosphere 7: e01556
McNeish RE, Kim LH, Barrett HA, Mason SA, Kelly JJ,
Hoellein TJ (2018) Microplastic in riverine fish is con-
nected to species traits. Sci Rep 8: 11639
Moore CJ (2008) Synthetic polymers in the marine environ-
ment: a rapidly increasing, long-term threat. Environ Res
108: 131−139
Moretti GP, Corallini Sorcetti C, Gattaponi P (1981) Tri-
choptera in the intestinal content of certain fish species.
In: Moretti GP (ed) Proc 3rd Int Symp on Trichoptera,
Perugia. Series Entomologica, Vol 20. Dr W Junk Pub-
lishers, The Hague, p 243−247
Moretti MS, Loyola RD, Becker B, Callisto M (2009) Leaf
abundance and phenolic concentrations codetermine
the selection of case-building materials by Phylloicus sp.
(Tricho ptera, Calamoceratidae). Hydrobiologia 630:
Mouro LD, Zato M, Fernandes ACS, Waichel BL (2016) Lar-
val cases of caddisfly (Insecta: Trichoptera) affinity in
Early Permian marine environments of Gondwana. Sci
Rep 6: 19215
Nel HA, Froneman PW (2018) Presence of microplastics in
the tube structure of the reef-building polychaete Gun na -
rea gaimardi (Quatrefages 1848). Afr J Mar Sci 40: 87−89
Nel HA, Dalu T, Wasserman RJ (2018) Sinks and sources:
assessing microplastic abundance in river sediment and
deposit feeders in an Austral temperate urban river sys-
tem. Sci Total Environ 612: 950−956
Nuelle MT, Dekiff JH, Remy D, Fries E (2014) A new analyt-
ical approach for monitoring microplastics in marine sed-
iments. Environ Pollut 184: 161−169
Okano JI, Kikuchi E, Sasaki O, Ohi S (2012) Mineralogical
composition of sediment determines the preference for
smooth particles by caddisfly larvae during case con-
struction. Ecol Entomol 37: 426−434
Otto C, Svensson BS (1980) The significance of case material
selection for the survival of caddis larvae. J Anim Ecol 49:
Redondo-Hasselerharm PE, Falahudin D, Peeters ETHM,
Koelmans AA (2018) Microplastic effect thresholds for
freshwater benthic macroinvertebrates. Environ Sci
Technol 52: 2278−2286
Rhainds M, Davis DR, Price PW (2009) Bionomics of bag-
worms (Lepidoptera: Psychidae). Annu Rev Entomol 54:
Rochman CM, Kross SM, Armstrong JB, Bogan MT and oth-
ers (2015) Scientific evidence supports a ban on micro -
beads. Environ Sci Technol 49: 10759−10761
Rummel CD, Jahnke A, Gorokhova E, Kühnel D, Schmitt-
Jansen M (2017) Impacts of biofilm formation on the fate
and potential effects of microplastic in the aquatic envi-
ronment. Environ Sci Technol Lett 4: 258−267
Schulte U, Spänhoff B, Meyer EI (2003) Ingestion and uti-
lization of wood by the larvae of two Trichoptera species,
Lasiocephala basalis (Lepidostomatidae) and Lype
phaeopa (Psychomyiidae). Arch Hydrobiol 158: 169−183
Sheath RG, Müller KM, Larson DJ, Cole KM (1995) Incorpora-
tion of freshwater Rhodophyta into the cases of caddisflies
(Trichoptera) from North America. J Phycol 31: 889−896
Skuja A (2010) Diel, seasonal and spatial drift pattern of the
caddisfly (Trichoptera) larvae in two medium-sized low-
land streams in Latvia. Latv Entomol 49: 14−27
Song YK, Hong SH, Jang M, Han GM, Rani M, Lee J, Shim
WJ (2015) A comparison of microscopic and spectroscopic
identification methods for analysis of microplastics in
environmental samples. Mar Pollut Bull 93: 202−209
Stewart RJ, Wang CS (2010) Adaptation of caddisfly larval
silks to aquatic habitats by phosphorylation of H-fibroin
serines. Biomacromolecules 11: 969−974
Su L, Xue Y, Li L, Yang D, Kolandhasamy P, Li D, Shi H
(2016) Microplastics in Taihu Lake, China. Environ Pollut
216: 711−719
Su L, Cai H, Kolandhasamy P, Wu C, Rochman CM, Shi H
(2018) Using the Asian clam as an indicator of microplas-
tic pollution in freshwater ecosystems. Environ Pollut
234: 347−355
Suter GW, Cormier SM (2015) Why care about aquatic in -
sects: uses, benefits, and services. Integr Environ Assess
Manag 11: 188−194
Tanaka K, Takada H (2016) Microplastic fragments and
microbeads in digestive tracts of planktivorous fish from
urban coastal waters. Sci Rep 6: 34351
Tibbetts J, Krause S, Lynch I, Sambrook Smith GH (2018)
Abundance, distribution, and drivers of microplastic con-
tamination in urban river environments. Water 10: 1597
Verdonschot PFM, Hering D, Murphy J, Jähnig SC and oth-
ers (2010) Climate change and the hydrology and mor-
phology of freshwater ecosystems. In: Kernan M, Battar-
bee RW, Moss BR (eds) Climate change impacts on
Aquat Biol 28: 67–77, 2019
freshwater ecosystems. Wiley, Chichester, p 65−83
Wallace ID, Wallace B, Philipson GN (1990) Keys to the case-
bearing caddis larvae of Britain and Ireland. Scientific
Publication Vol 51. Freshwater Biological Association,
Waringer JA (1987) Spatial distribution of Trichoptera larvae
in the sediments of an Austrian mountain brook. Freshw
Biol 18: 469−482
Waringer J, Graf W (2011) Atlas of Central European Tri-
choptera larvae. Erik Mauch Verlag, Dinkelscherben
Weber A, Scherer C, Brennholt N, Reifferscheid G, Wagner
M (2018) PET microplastics do not negatively affect the
survival, development, metabolism and feeding activity
of the freshwater invertebrate Gammarus pulex. Environ
Pollut 234: 181−189
Weigand H, Weiss M, Cai H, Li Y, Yu L, Zhang C, Leese F
(2017) Deciphering the origin of mito-nuclear discordance
in two sibling caddisfly species. Mol Ecol 26: 5705−5715
Williams DD, Tavares AF, Bryant E (1987) Respiratory de vice
or camouflage? A case for the caddisfly. Oikos 50: 42−52
Windsor FM, Tilley RM, Tyler CR, Ormerod SJ (2019) Micro-
plastic ingestion by riverine macroinvertebrates. Sci
Total Environ 646: 68−74
Wright SL, Thompson RC, Galloway TS (2013) The physical
impacts of microplastics on marine organisms: a review.
Environ Pollut 178: 483−492
Zamora Muñoz C, Svensson BW (1996) Survival of caddis
larvae in relation to their case material in a group of tem-
porary and permanent pools. Freshw Biol 36: 23−31
Zhang K, Su J, Xiong X, Wu X, Wu C, Liu J (2016) Microplas-
tic pollution of lakeshore sediments from remote lakes in
Tibet plateau, China. Environ Pollut 219: 450−455
Fig. A1. Examples of microplastics found in Lepidostoma basale cases. (A) Blue polypropylene (PP) fragment, (B) yellow acry-
lonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS) film, (C) transparent polyethylene (PE) sphere, (D) black PP fiber, (E) red thermo plastic
polyurethane (TPU) film, (F) orange PP film
Appendix. Examples of microplastics, µFTIR spectra, and a picture of the analyzed caddisfly species.
Ehlers et al.: Microplastics in caddisfly larval cases 77
Fig. A2. Spectra of microplastics (red spectra) measured with micro-Fourier-
transform infrared spectroscopy (µFTIR) in attenuated total reflectance (µATR)
mode. The blue spectra are reference spectra from the Bruker spectra database.
PE: polyethylene; PA: polyamide; PP: polypropylene
Fig. A3. Case-bearing Lepidostoma basale larva that had
microplastics fixed in its case which are not visible to the
naked eye
Editorial responsibility: Victor Benno Meyer-Rochow,
Oulu, Finland
Submitted: January 24, 2019; Accepted: April 18, 2019
Proofs received from author(s): July 6, 2019
... In environmental samples in general, PE is the most abundant [73,86,91,122], closely followed by PP [84,91,121,124], PET [68,94,107], PS [64,90,121], and PA [63,65,120], which are plastics mostly produced for single-use purposes [149]. Some other popular plastics, such as PVC, are not as prevalent as MPs, presumably as PVC is a robust material produced in higher thicknesses for long-use applications, and does not disintegrate as fast as thin packaging material [148]. ...
... Simon-Sánchez et al., 2019 reached a similar result, where almost 75% of all their detected particles in water were smaller than 500 µm, while 50% were smaller than 200 µm [63]. Overlooking this size fraction would constitute a critical problem as, apart from their abundance, this is the size class that organisms interact with the most [110,120,124,130,150]. Additionally, to be able to prepare realistic microparticles, this size class needs to be thoroughly characterised. ...
... Interestingly, Li et al., 2018 found a clear distribution of shapes in mangrove wetlands, stating that fibres were the most dominant inside the mangroves, while they were almost non-existent outside, indicating that fibres were retained by the mangrove roots [121]. In some cases, microspheres have been found, which resemble primary microparticles [9,121,124]; however these are almost always the least abundant shape [9,63,66]. ...
Full-text available
Microplastic particles (MPs) pose a novel threat to nature. Despite being first noticed in the 1970s, research on this topic has only surged in recent years. Researchers have mainly focused on environmental plastic particles; however, studies with defined microplastic particles as the sample input are scarce. Furthermore, comparison of those studies indicates a discrepancy between the particles found (e.g., in the environment) and those used for further research (e.g., exposure studies). Obviously, it is important to use particles that resemble those found in the environment to conduct appropriate research. In this review, different categories of microplastic particles are addressed, before covering an overview of the most common separation and analysis methods for environmental MPs is covered. After showing that the particles found in the environment are mostly irregular and polydisperse, while those used in studies with plastic microparticles as samples are often not, different particle production techniques are investigated and suggestions for preparing realistic plastic particles are given.
... As a consequence, it increases the abundance of particles making it easier for them to be carried by water (Hoellein et al., 2019). Furthermore, caddisflies that naturally build shelters using sand, stones, leaves, small twigs, and sponge spicules, end up using plastic particles to build their shelters (Ehlers et al., 2019. As adults, aquatic insects have wings and live in the terrestrial environment where they can be attracted to the plastics used in agricultural fields by phototaxis and polarotaxis. ...
... Environmental monitoring (09) -It were about dispersal, colonization, and oviposition; were about ingestio and about the incorporation of MPs in shelters built by Trichoptera. Cheng and Pitman, 2002 Number of oviposition events in MGP substrates Goldstein et al., 2012 Number of oviposition events in MP substrates Majer et al., 2012 Number of oviposition events in MP substrates (pellets) Nel et al., 2018 MP abundance and MP pollution indicators in microplastic substrates Rech et al., 2018 Encrusting biota in MCP substrates Ehlers et al., 2019 MPs incorporated into Caddisfly shelters (microfragments) Akindele et al., 2020 MP ingestion by different trophic guilds (Biomagnification) Macan and Kitching, 1976 Colonization of suspended MCP surfaces Windsor et al., 2019 MP ingestion by macroinvertebrates that are similar to real ones (Boulton and Foster, 1998), three of them evaluated dispersal and colonization of plastic substrates Csabai, 2009a, 2009b;Booth et al., 2013). Two studies evaluated the effects of MGPs on constructed fish farming tanks, which are usually lined with plastic. ...
Environmental contamination by plastics and its negative effect on biodiversity have been well-documented in several types of organisms, especially in marine environments. Therefore, it is necessary to assess the impacts of plastic on other organisms such as aquatic insects, which predominantly inhabit freshwaters. It is widely known that these organisms are sensitive to environmental change, especially by contamination. Therefore, this study aimed at testing the hypothesis that aquatic insects are impacted by plastic contamination. We made a systematic search for international papers related to plastics and aquatic insects in databases such as Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus. We obtained 1217 studies of which 40 discussed the impacts of contamination by plastics on aquatic insects. We identified two main impacts: the first one is caused by the use of black macroplastic to protect crops from contact with the soil in agriculture. These black macroplastics attract tons of adult aquatic insects (terrestrial stage) that mistake the plastic surface for water because they select oviposition sites through phototaxis or polarotaxis. The second one comes from water contamination that can originate from the inadequate disposal of plastics, which harms young aquatic insects (aquatic phase) when they feed, reproduce, and construct shelters. Our results show the negative impacts of plastics on both larvae and adult aquatic insects. Despite the large knowledge gap regarding the impacts of plastic on aquatic insects, the evidence above is sufficient to consider these organisms important in global discussions regarding the impacts of plastic on biodiversity.
... Some other studies have dealt with the presence of MPs by riverine insects [10][11][12][37][38][39][40][41][42][43]. Some of these have dealt with the ingestion of MPs by riverine insects [10][11][12][40][41][42][43]; however, the insects studied were not Simulidae, and some studies were mainly exposure experiments to few native polymers. ...
Full-text available
This study is the first to investigate the ingestion of microplastics (MPs), plasticizers, additives, and particles of micro-litter <100 μm by larvae of Simuliidae (Diptera) in rivers. Blackflies belong to a small cosmopolitan insect family whose larvae are present alongside river courses, often with a torrential regime, up to their mouths. Specimens of two species of blackfly larvae, Simulium equinum and Simulium ornatum, were collected in two rivers in Central Italy, the Mignone and the Treja. Small microplastics (SMPs, <100 μm), plasticizers, additives, and other micro-litter components, e.g., natural and non-plastic synthetic fibers (APFs) ingested by blackfly larvae were, for the first time, quantified and concurrently identified via MicroFTIR. The pretreatment allowed for simultaneous extraction of the ingested SMPs and APFs. Strong acids or strong oxidizing reagents and the application of temperatures well above the glass transition temperature of polyamide 6 and 6.6 (55–60 °C) were not employed to avoid further denaturation/degradation of polymers and underestimating the quantification. Reagent and procedural blanks did not show any SMPs or APFs. The method’s yield was >90%. Differences in the abundances of the SMPs and APFs ingested by the two species under exam were statistically significant. Additives and plasticizers can be specific to a particular polymer; thus, these compounds can be proxies for the presence of plastic polymers in the environment.
... Here, we used H 2 O 2 for tissue digestion, but other studies use different digestion agents (HNO 3 , KOH, etc.) that allow for a different recovery of MPs and may even dissolve some types [83]. Besides, using different digestion agents will produce changes in the MPs bleaching: while the bleaching is not expected using H 2 O 2 , or in a smaller way, as it has been presented in previous studies [84], the bleached of different materials is present in samples exposed to KOH [85]. Another source of variation between studies is the filter pore. ...
Full-text available
Microplastics (MPs) are increasing in the marine environment as well as inside marine organisms, having an important effect on biological diversity. The trophic transfer of MPs was demonstrated under laboratory conditions, but this study is based on the analysis of preys found in stomach contents. MPs from Merluccius merluccius individuals caught in the Cantabrian Sea and preys inside their guts (blue whiting, and northern krill inside blue whiting) were analyzed. MPs with different chemical composition occurred inside every hake and their preys, with different damages, from aquatic life hazards with long lasting effects, to allergic skin reactions and respiratory irritation, not only for aquatic species and fishing resources, but also for humans through hake consumption. The similarity of MPs profiles from gills and seawater samples would support seawater as the main source of gill microplastics. The MPs profile of hake GIT was similar to that of hake preys inside. Despite the small sample size, the presence of MPs in all the tissues analyzed of hakes and their preys, together with the evidence of hazard compositions of some of them, highlights the need for policies and actions to reduce plastic and microplastic production and consumption.
... Hermit crabs have also been documented using litter as mobile homes instead of shells (Lavers and Bond, 2017). Similarly, case building caddisfly have been found to incorporate microplastics and other artificial particles into their cases (Ehlers et al., 2019), which could affect the physical properties of their cases (Ehlers et al., 2020). ...
Full-text available
Anthropogenic litter (solid manufactured waste) is a significant and increasing problem worldwide. However, despite emerging evidence of the prevalence of litter in rivers, most research has focused on the marine environment. Anthropogenic litter has been shown to have a variety of environmental impacts in aquatic systems, but its consequences for rivers are poorly understood. This thesis aimed to address this by investigating the characteristics and ecological impacts of litter in rivers. I undertook field surveys and in situ experiments to determine how macroinvertebrates and fish are affected by riverine litter. First, in a survey of small and heavily managed UK rivers, I found that anthropogenic litter density across a range of small and heavily managed UK rivers ranged from 0 to 8.7 items m-2. This density is comparable to that reported in other aquatic systems, confirming that rivers contain considerable quantities of litter and demonstrating the need for increased research into litter in rivers. Plastic was the most common litter material, but its dominance was less than has been found in marine systems or on river banks. Thus, excluding non-plastic materials, like glass and metal, from riverine litter research risks omitting a significant proportion of anthropogenic litter from investigation. This study also found a positive correlation between litter density and macroinvertebrate diversity across rivers. This surprising result suggested that anthropogenic litter could increase the diversity of available habitat, especially in managed rivers that are otherwise scarce in habitat diversity. This finding was supported by the results of a second investigation comparing the macroinvertebrate communities inhabiting litter and natural mineral substrates (rocks); the dominant natural substrate in the sampled rivers. It found that communities on litter were consistently more diverse than rock equivalents, reflecting the greater surface complexity of the litter. Results also suggested that small-scale differences in the physical properties of litter types and rocks cause the different substrates to support distinct macroinvertebrate communities. In particular, flexible plastic and fabric items were inhabited by macroinvertebrate taxa that would typically live on macrophytes, suggesting that these types of litter items can mimic the structure of plants. Anthropogenic litter, especially large litter items, may affect more than just the organisms which inhabit its surface. By altering local habitat conditions it could impact biota in the surrounding river. This was investigated through experimentally installing car tyres into two rivers (one sand-bed and one gravel-bed river) and monitoring their effects on macroinvertebrates and fish. The macroinvertebrate communities inhabiting tyre surfaces in the sand-bed river were significantly more diverse and included more sensitive taxa than the surrounding river bed, whereas tyre surface communities were relatively impoverished in the gravel-bed river. In both rivers, tyres significantly affected macroinvertebrate communities in the surrounding river bed, which could be attributed to the influence of the tyres on local flow and sediment conditions, similar to the effects of natural structures like large wood and boulders. Some small fish (<15 cm long roach, chub, and dace) were also affected by tyres. They spent more time and fed more downstream of tyres than they did upstream, sheltering in the zone of slower flow velocity which may allow them to preserve energy. Other fish species and sizes were less frequently observed and did not seem to respond to the presence of tyres. This research is the first to show that anthropogenic litter can provide and create habitat in rivers. It suggests that, whilst litter should not be deliberately added to rivers, removing it could have the side effect of reducing local biodiversity, both for macroinvertebrates and fish, unless the habitat it provides is replaced by alternative materials.
... As aerial insectivores, the preferred prey of tree swallows are caddisflies, dragonflies, damselflies and mayflies that develop in freshwater systems before emerging as adults. Microplastics and particles are found in these and other macroinvertebrates (e.g., Ehlers et al., 2019;Windsor et al., 2019;Simmerman and Coleman Wasik, 2020;Garcia et al., 2021). Since tree swallows are prey for other predators, and trophic transfer of microplastics is known to occur between avian species (Hammer et al., 2016), it is conceivable that tree swallows may be a source of microplastics when consumed by higher trophic predators. ...
Limited research has been conducted on microplastics in terrestrial ecosystems and biota, despite being some of the most ubiquitous environmental pollutants. We investigated the presence of microplastics (over 125 μm) in tree swallow (Tachicyneta bicolor) chicks (10 d. o.), an aerial insectivore whose diet involves terrestrial and/or freshwater sources. Swallows nested immediately downstream (300 m) of the discharge pipe of a large, urban wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) or at a rural conservation area (40 km apart). Anthropogenic microparticles (including microplastics) were identified in nearly all WWTP chicks (90%; N = 20) and reference chicks (83%; N = 20). All microparticles were fibers (100%) in the gastro-intestinal (GI) tracts of WWTP nestlings, whereas unexpectedly, they were more diverse in the GI tracts of reference chicks, with ~15% characterized as pre-production plastic pellets. The fecal sacs of most nestlings (90%) contained microparticles, and all were characterized as fibers suggesting their excretion by tree swallows. Compared to WWTP chicks, the reference chicks had more microparticles in their fecal sacs and larger particles (length, width) in their GI tracts, likely reflecting the more aquatic-based diet of the reference chicks fed insects caught adjacent to the nearby dam, compared to the more terrestrial-based diet of the WWTP chicks. The numbers of microparticles were not correlated between GI tracts and fecal sacs, nor with the chicks' condition or size (weight, organs, feathers). We recommend sampling macroinvertebrate prey to permit stronger conclusions regarding WWTPs as possible sources of microplastics for swallows, and to determine if such macroinvertebrates may be a non-lethal method to characterize microparticle diversity ingested by birds as presently identified in chicks' GI tracts. We conclude that sampling fecal sacs only, while not indicative of the diversity of microplastics ingested by terrestrial passerines (e.g., tree swallows), is useful for determining their exposure to microparticles.
Freshwater ecosystems are subjected to plastic extensive pollution because they are the direct link between plastic wastes and marine ecosystems. The aim of this study was to assess the impacts of different sizes of polyethylene plastics (micro: µPs and macroplastics: PBs) on freshwater decomposers of plant litter. We exposed leaf associated microbial assemblages to µPs (0.5 or 1.5 g L⁻¹) and discs of PBs as follows: green plastic bags (PB-G) alone or in mixtures with transparent plastic bags (PB-Mix). Then, we conducted a feeding preference experiment with the invertebrate shredder Limnephilus sp. to assess their capacity to distinguish leaf discs from PB discs of the same size (12 mm). Leaf decomposition, activities of fungal enzymes and sporulation were inhibited by µPs and PB-Mix, and shifts in fungal community composition were observed. The invertebrate shredders preferred to feed on leaves treated with µPs avoiding those exposed to PB-G/PB-Mix. Our results demonstrated that plastics can have a direct effect on stream-dwelling microbial decomposers and an indirect effect on higher trophic levels (shredders), highlighting that trophic transfer is a route of plastic exposure. The plastic properties (size, concentration, colour) appear to influence plastic toxicity to microbes and shredders, indicating the importance of considering physicochemical properties when assessing their risks to freshwater ecosystems.
Full-text available
Recording plastic ingestion across various species and spatial scales is key to elucidating the impact of plastic pollution on coastal and marine ecosystems. The effect of plastic ingestion on the diets, physiologies, and behaviors of selected fish species are well documented under laboratory settings. However, prevalence of plastic ingestion in wild fish across latitudinal gradients is yet to be widely documented; with a substantial lack of research in the Southern Hemisphere. We analyzed the gut content of reef fish across ~30o latitude of the east coast of Australia. Of 876 fish examined from 140 species (83 genera and 37 families), 12 individuals had visible (meso-plastics detectable to the naked eye) plastics present in the gut. Here, we present a first-look at plastic ingestion for coastal species with this region.
Plastic pollution is abundant in aquatic environments worldwide and many of its detrimental impacts are well documented, but it also represents a novel substrate available to a diversity of organisms. Biofilms – assemblages of bacteria, algae, and fungi – colonise hard surfaces in aquatic environments. They are key agents in biogeochemical cycling and are a food source for grazing organisms, representing a keystone aquatic community, and are known to influence the fate of plastic pollution in aquatic environments. In one of the most temporally thorough assessments of biofilm development on freshwater plastics, here we report on the evolution of algal biofilm assemblages on three plastic polymers (Low Density Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Polyethylene Terephthalate) over six weeks in the photic and aphotic zones of a freshwater reservoir in Staffordshire, UK. Significant differences were found between diatom assemblages on plastics in the photic and aphotic zones, and between diatom assemblages quantified on weeks 2, 4 and 6 of the study, but total algal photosynthetic pigment concentrations did not vary significantly between polymers in either zone. Scanning Electron Microscopy indicates that degradation of polymer surfaces occurs within six weeks in the aphotic zone, with potential implications for plastic fragmentation and microplastic generation.
Full-text available
Given the persistence of microplastics in the environment and their potential toxicity to ecosystems, understanding of likely microplastic accumulation ‘hotspots’ in rivers is urgently needed. To contribute to this challenge, this paper reports results of a microplastic survey from a heavily urbanised catchment, the River Tame and four of its tributaries, which flows through the city of Birmingham, UK. All sediment sampled was found to contain microplastics with an average abundance of 165 particles kg−1. While urban areas generally have a greater abundance of microplastics as compared with rural, there is no simple relationship between microplastic numbers and population density or proximity to wastewater treatment sites. The greatest change in microplastic abundance was due to the presence of a lake along the course of the River Tame—i.e., flow velocities are reduced on entering the lake, which promotes the deposition of fine sediment and potentially microplastics. This suggests that the greatest concentrations of microplastics will not be found in-channel but rather on the floodplain and other low velocity environments such as meander cutoffs. We also identified a new mechanism of microplastic fixation in freshwater environments through ecological engineers, specifically caddisflies, that incorporated microplastics into their casing. These results highlight the need to explore further hydrodynamic and ecological impacts on microplastics fate and transport in rivers.
Full-text available
Microplastic is a contaminant of concern worldwide. Rivers are implicated as major pathways of microplastic transport to marine and lake ecosystems, and microplastic ingestion by freshwater biota is a risk associated with microplastic contamination, but there is little research on microplastic ecology within freshwater ecosystems. Microplastic uptake by fish is likely affected by environmental microplastic abundance and aspects of fish ecology, but these relationships have rarely been addressed. We measured the abundance and composition of microplastic in fish and surface waters from 3 major tributaries of Lake Michigan, USA. Microplastic was detected in fish and surface waters from all 3 sites, but there was no correlation between microplastic concentrations in fish and surface waters. Rather, there was a significant effect of functional feeding group on microplastic concentration in fish. Neogobius melanostomus (round goby, a zoobenthivore) had the highest concentration of gut microplastic (19 particles fish-1) compared to 10 other fish taxa measured, and had a positive linear relationship between body size and number of microplastic particles. Surface water microplastic concentrations were lowest in the most northern, forested watershed, and highest in the most southern, agriculturally dominated watershed. Results suggest microplastic pollution is common in river food webs and is connected to species feeding characteristics. Future research should focus on understanding the movement of microplastic from point-source and diffuse sources and into aquatic ecosystems, which will support pollution management efforts on inland waters.
Full-text available
ABSTRACT: Ingestion of microplastics by marine organisms is a common occurrence in marine ecosystems, but the experimental demonstration of the effects of ingested microplastics on marine organisms has only recently become an important subject of research. In this review, the ingestion of microplastics by marine organisms, its attendant potential consequences and specific hypothet- ical questions for further studies are discussed. The formation of heteroaggregates in the gut of prey organisms may delay microplastic clearance, potentially increasing the chances of microplas- tic trophic transfer to predators. Also, the survival and energetics of keystone species at lower trophic levels are negatively affected by ingestion of microplastics, thereby raising questions about the transfer of energy and nutrients to organisms at higher trophic levels. Further, since microplastics are able to adsorb and concentrate organic pollutants up to 1 million times more than the pollutant concentration in ambient waters, the ingestion of such small plastic fragments is, a probable route for the entrance and biomagnification of toxic chemicals in the marine food web. However, the equilibrium state between pollutant concentration in marine organisms and that of surrounding waters makes it unclear whether the ingestion of microplastics actually increases the pollutant load of organisms. Finally, microplastic ingestion can cause endocrine dis- orders in adult fish, which could result in neoplasia via epigenetic programming. Therefore, microplastic pollution may be a contributory cause of increased incidents of neoplasia in marine animals. The amount of microplastics in marine waters will steadily rise, and questions about their impact on marine ecosystems will linger.
Full-text available
Although microplastics are a recognised pollutant in marine environments, less attention has been directed towards freshwater ecosystems despite their greater proximity to possible plastic sources. Here, we quantify the presence of microplastic particles (MPs) in river organisms upstream and downstream of five UK Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTWs). MPs were identified in approximately 50% of macroinvertebrate samples collected (Baetidae, Heptageniidae and Hydropsychidae) at concentrations up to 0.14 MP mg tissue−1 and they occurred at all sites. MP abundance was associated with macroinvertebrate biomass and taxonomic family, but MPs occurred independently of feeding guild and biological traits such as habitat affinity and ecological niche. There was no increase in plastic ingestion downstream of WwTW discharges averaged across sites, but MP abundance in macroinvertebrates marginally increased where effluent discharges contributed more to total runoff and declined with increasing river discharge. The ubiquity of microplastics within macroinvertebrates in this case study reveals a potential risk from MPs entering riverine food webs through at least two pathways, involving detritivory and filter-feeding, and we recommend closer attention to freshwater ecosystems in future research
Full-text available
The prevalence of microplastics in the marine environment has resulted in a need to understand their association with various fauna. The aim of this study was to assess whether microplastic particles are present in the tube structure of the indigenous reef-building polychaete Gunnarea gaimardi, which occurs along the coast of South Africa. Sampling was conducted at nine stations along the west and southeast coastlines of South Africa, in July 2016 and April/May 2017. Microplastic particles were recorded in all tube structures of G. gaimardi, with the density ranging between 0.056 and 1.113 microplastic particles g–1 dry weight (dwt). There were no significant differences between sites (p > 0.05), resulting in an overall average of 0.275 (SD 0.215) microplastic particles g–1 (dwt). To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to show that synthetic polymers are found in the tubes of reef-building polychaetes along the coast of South Africa.
Full-text available
Microplastics are widespread throughout aquatic environments. However, there is currently insufficient understanding of the factors influencing ingestion of microplastics by organisms, especially higher predators such as fish. In this study we link ingestion of microplastics by the roach Rutilus rutilus, within the non-tidal part of the River Thames, to exposure and physiological factors. Microplastics were found within the gut contents of roach from six out of seven sampling sites. Of sampled fish, 33% contained at least one microplastic particle. The majority of particles were fibres (75%), with fragments and films also seen (22.7% and 2.3% respectively). Polymers identified were polyethylene, polypropylene and polyester, in addition to a synthetic dye. The maximum number of ingested microplastic particles for individual fish was strongly correlated to exposure (based on distance from the source of the river). Additionally, at a given exposure, the size of fish correlated with the actual quantity of microplastics in the gut. Larger (mainly female) fish were more likely to ingest the maximum possible number of particles than smaller (mainly male) fish. This study is the first to show microplastic ingestion within freshwater fish in the UK and provides valuable new evidence of the factors influencing ingestion that can be used to inform future studies on exposure and hazard of microplastics to fish.
Although microplastic (MP) pollution in freshwater systems is gaining attention, our knowledge of its distribution in small waterbodies is scarce. Small waterbodies are freshwater habitats to many species, including amphibians, that are vulnerable to MP pollution. This study analyzed the distribution and characteristics of MPs in 25 small waterbodies from the Yangtze River Delta, China. MPs were detected in surface water, sediment, and tadpoles with abundances ranging from 0.48 to 21.52 items L–1, 35.76 to 3185.33 items kg–1, and 0 to 2.73 items individual–1 (0 to 168.48 items g–1), respectively. The dominant shape and polymer of MPs in water and tadpole samples were polyester (PES) fibers, and polypropylene (PP) fibers and fragments were dominant in sediment samples. In addition, MPs were primarily <0.5 mm in length in all samples. Tadpole length was positively correlated to the number of MPs detected. The abundance, shape, and polymer distribution of MPs in tadpoles resembled that of water rather than sediment, suggesting that tadpoles likely take up MPs from the surrounding water. This study demonstrated that MPs are abundant in these small waterbodies and are ingested by resident tadpoles. This may suggest a pathway of MP entry into aquatic and terrestrial food webs.
Microplastics (MPs) have adverse effects on aquatic organisms in marine environments; however, there is a lack of information on freshwater environments. This study investigated the dietary uptake, and biodistribution and depuration of MPs in the freshwater diving beetle Cybister japonicus (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) after consumption of zebrafish (Danio rerio) exposed to MPs. The transfer of MPs in diving beetles after consumption of zebrafish was assessed to determine whether the presence of MPs affected diving beetle behavior and predation. We found that diving beetles that consumed MP-exposed fish had a significantly lower ingestion rate than the control. In addition, the trophic transfer rate of MPs was 13-18%. However, MPs were found only in the crop and proventriculus of the beetles, and all particles were depurated within 48 h, likely via regurgitation. As diving beetle is a top predator in freshwater ecosystems and could facilitate transfer from aquatic to terrestrial ecosystems via predation, its behavior towards indigestible MPs in its digestive organs (i.e., filtering and vomiting) could represent a meaningful phenomenon as a potential vector for MP transport. This is the first report of the trophic transfer of MPs from fish to dytiscid species, which helps clarify the effects and mechanisms of MPs in freshwater systems.
A two-step method was developed to extract microplastics from sediments. First, 1 kg sediments was pre-extracted using the air-induced overflow (AIO) method, based on fluidisation in a sodium chloride (NaCl) solution. The original sediment mass was reduced by up to 80%. As a consequence, it was possible to reduce the volume of sodium iodide (NaI) solution used for the subsequent flotation step. Recoveries of the whole procedure for polyethylene, polypropylene (PP), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polystyrene and polyurethane with sizes of approximately 1 mm were between 91 and 99%. After being stored for one week in a 35% H 2 O 2 solution, 92% of selected biogenic material had dissolved completely or had lost its colour, whereas the tested polymers were resistant. Microplastics were extracted from three sediment samples collected from the North Sea island Norderney. Using pyrolysis gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, these microplastics were identified as PP, PVC and PET.