Advertisement

Contrary to Marine Environments, Common Microplastics in Freshwater Systems May Not Emit Dimethyl Sulfide: An Important Infochemical

  • Lauren ZinkEmail author
  • Gregory G. Pyle
Article

Abstract

The ingestion of microplastics by marine species has been at least partially attributed to plastics emitting a dimethyl sulfide signature when exposed to marine conditions. Dimethyl sulfide, a member of the volatile organic sulfur compounds group, is an infochemical that many species rely on to locate and identify prey while foraging. Microplastic ingestion is also observed in freshwater systems; however, this study shows that the same dimethyl sulfide signature is not obtained by three common types of plastic (high-density polyethylene, low-density polyethylene, and polystyrene) in freshwater systems, suggesting that there may be an alternate mechanism driving plastic ingestion by freshwater species.

Keywords

Dimethyl sulfide Microplastics Freshwater Plastic degradation Microplastic ingestion 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by an NSERC Discovery Grant (RGPIN-2015-04492) held by G. Pyle and an Alberta Conservation Association Grant in Biodiversity (RES0035325-S016) held by L. Zink. We would like to acknowledge Pyle Laboratory for Aquatic Health member Sean Everitt for his assistance in data acquisition.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no real or perceived conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

The guidelines established by the Canadian Council on Animal Care exempt the invertebrate animals used in this study, the ethical principles set out therein were respected in the execution of this work.

References

  1. Bentley R, Chasteen TG (2004) Environmental VOSCs—formation and degradation of dimethyl sulfide, methanethiol and related materials. Chemosphere 55:291–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Caron F, Kramer JR (1994) Formation of volatile sulfides in freshwater environments. Sci Total Environ 153:177–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ginzburg B, Chalifa I, Gun J, Dor I, Hadas O, Lev O (1998) DMS formation by dimethylsulfoniopropionate route in freshwater. Environ Sci Technol 32:2130–2136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Grigsby JH, Palamand SR (1976) A colorimetric procedure for the measurement of dimethyl sulfide in water, wort, and beer. J Am Soc Brew Chem 35:43–48Google Scholar
  5. Kadota H, Ishida Y (1972) Production of volatile sulfur compounds by microorganisms. Annu Rev Microbiol 26:127–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kiene RP, Service SK (1991) Decomposition of dissolved DMSP and DMS in estuarine waters: dependence on temperature and substrate concentration. Mar Progr Ser 76:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lehtiniemi M, Hartikainen S, Näkki P, Engström-Öst J, Koistinen A, Setälä O (2018) Size matters more than shape: ingestion of primary and secondary microplastics by small predators. Food Webs 16:e00097Google Scholar
  8. Lomans BP (1999) Anaerobic versus aerobic degradation of dimethyl sulfide and methanethiol in anoxic freshwater sediments. Appl Environ Microbiol 65:438–443Google Scholar
  9. Lomans BP, Smolders AJP, Intven LM, Pol A (1997) Formation of dimethyl sulfide and methanethiol in anoxic freshwater sediments. Appl Environ Microbiol 63:4741–4747Google Scholar
  10. Lomans BP, Luderer R, Steenbakkers P, Pol A, van der Drift C, Vogels GD, den Camp O, H.J.M (2001) Microbial populations involved in cycling of dimethyl sulfide and methanethiol in freshwater sediments. Appl Environ Microbiol 67:1044–1051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lomans BP, van der Drift C, Pol A, Op den Camp HJM (2002) Microbial cycling of volatile organic sulfur compounds. Cell Mol Life Sci CMLS 59:575–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Savoca MS, Nevitt GA (2014) Evidence that dimethyl sulfide facilitates a tritrophic mutualism between marine primary producers and top predators. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:4157–4161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Savoca MS, Wohlfeil ME, Ebeler SE, Nevitt GA (2016) Marine plastic debris emits a keystone infochemical for olfactory foraging seabirds. Sci Adv 2:e1600395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Scherer C, Brennholt N, Reifferscheid G, Wagner M (2017) Feeding type and development drive the ingestion of microplastics by freshwater invertebrates. Sci Rep 7:17006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sela-Adler M, Said-Ahmad W, Sivan O, Eckert W, Kiene RP, Amrani A (2016) Isotopic evidence for the origin of dimethylsulfide and dimethylsulfoniopropionate-like compounds in a warm, monomictic freshwater lake. Environ Chem 13:340–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Seymour JR, Simó R, Ahmed T, Stocker R (2010) Chemoattraction to dimethylsulfoniopropionate throughout the marine microbial food web. Science 329:342–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Yoch DC, Carraway RH, Friedman R, Kulkarni N (2001) Dimethylsulfide (DMS) production from dimethylsulfoniopropionate by freshwater river sediments: phylogeny of Gram-positive DMS-producing isolates. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 37:31–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of LethbridgeLethbridgeCanada

Personalised recommendations