The Berried Clubby Molt & Moss
Menu

Open this record in the complete research map

Controlled experiment Direct Neocaridina evidence

Locomotor behavior of Neocaridina palmata: a study with leachates from UV-weathered microplastics

Klein, Hess, Schulte-Oehlmann and Oehlmann, 2021. PeerJ 9: e12442.

Open the source

This record is a claim boundary, not a quality badge. Evidence class and species relationship describe what was studied. They do not make the result universal, complete or automatically applicable to a home aquarium.

Source taxon as published
Neocaridina palmata, White Pearl variety as purchased; identity was not independently verified
Environment
Adult shrimp held individually for 14 days in 200 mL of reconstituted water with concentrated, particle-filtered extracts from one recycled LDPE material or one starch-blend foil
Life stages
adult selected by body length
Reviewed
2026-08-12

What was studied

Study shape: Four material-by-weathering experiments each used eight one-shrimp vessels per concentration at 0.40, 1.00, 2.50, 6.25 or 15.6 g plastic equivalents/L plus medium, DMSO and lethal sodium-chloride controls. Movement was recorded on days 1, 3, 7 and 14. Separate three-run Microtox tests used the same pooled extracts.

Experimental unit: Individual 600 mL beaker containing one shrimp and 200 mL medium for the in vivo response; duplicate 24-hour leachates were combined into one extract per material and weathering condition, so shrimp vessels did not independently replicate leachate preparation

Endpoints: moved distance, frozen events, daily observed mortality, daily molting, body length, sex, Aliivibrio fischeri luminescence inhibition.

Claim boundary

What it can support: The concentrated extracts inhibited bacterial luminescence, but moved distance and frozen events in shrimp showed high individual variation, few isolated differences and no consistent concentration-response across the four material-by-weathering experiments.

What it cannot support: The in vivo treatments were particle-filtered extracts expressed as source-plastic equivalents, not particles, identified chemical doses or aquarium-product exposures. The two leachate duplicates were pooled, extracts were 5000-fold concentrated, the study did not chemically analyze its own mixtures and the lethal sodium-chloride group was excluded from the 896-trajectory analysis. Two locomotor endpoints cannot establish overall safety or absence of harm. The work did not test N. davidi, growth, reproduction, histology, chronic exposure, natural weathering or a home-aquarium threshold. Four raw XLSX supplements were available but could not be audited in this intake because the required workbook runtime was unavailable.

Publication status audit

Matched in dated Crossref query

The canonical DOI appeared in the dated broad query and carried no registered update in that response. This is a metadata observation, not proof that the work has never changed.

Metadata snapshot reviewed 2026-08-12. Inspect the method, unmatched queue and limitations.

Correction impact

If this source boundary changes, these are the known downstream consumers. The list distinguishes scientific re-review from generated parity and historical follow-up.

Editorial review required (4)

This curated wording or synthesis must be reconsidered when the source boundary changes. A passing generator test cannot decide the new scientific meaning.

  • behaviour decision card Tank-side decision card
    The card translates this guide into an observation, first action, next record and stopping boundary, so all four require editorial review when the source changes.
  • chemical-safety decision card Tank-side decision card
    The card translates this guide into an observation, first action, next record and stopping boundary, so all four require editorial review when the source changes.
  • behaviour practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.
  • chemical-safety practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.

Generated from governing registry (13)

This surface derives from a governing registry and should update with it, but release tests must still prove parity and routing.

Historical record needs follow-up decision (1)

Do not silently rewrite history. Decide whether the prior change record remains accurate and publish a new correction or scope note when needed.

Inspect the corpus-wide propagation audit.

How this record is classified

Controlled experiment: An assigned treatment or controlled comparison. The treatment, unit, duration and endpoint still limit the claim.

Direct Neocaridina evidence: The source measured animals named within Neocaridina. Direct still does not mean universal or sufficient.

Topics: Behaviour, Chemical exposure, Health, Molting

Critically appraise this source without a score

These questions fit this record's controlled experiment role. They are prompts, not automatic judgments. Open the original source to answer them.

  1. Identity and provenance: How were the organism, population, stock and life stage identified and sourced? A published name or seller label can hide a taxonomic, population or life-stage transfer.
  2. Independent unit: What unit was independently assigned or sampled, and how many units support each comparison? Animal counts do not create independent replication when animals share a vessel, site, family or treatment history.
  3. Comparison and context: What was the actual comparator, allocation process, environment, duration and material condition? A result has meaning only against the comparison and conditions that produced it.
  4. Endpoint and measurement: Which endpoint was measured, with what method, unit, timing, resolution and decision rule? One endpoint cannot silently become survival, welfare, diagnosis, reproduction or long-term population performance.
  5. Denominators and missingness: Are starting counts, exclusions, losses, missing observations and analysis denominators reconciled? Unreported or changing denominators can alter the apparent direction, precision and applicability of a result.
  6. Transfer boundary: What is the nearest tempting aquarium claim that this source design cannot establish? Direct evidence can still be narrow, and adjacent evidence can be useful only while the inference remains visible.
  7. Treatment assignment: Were independent units assigned to treatments, and were baseline conditions comparable? Unclear allocation or baseline imbalance can confound the treatment comparison.
  8. Replication: Were treatment vessels or other exposure units independently replicated rather than subsampled? Repeated animals or assays inside one exposure unit do not replicate the environmental treatment.
  9. Exposure verification: Was the treatment, dose, feed intake or environmental exposure measured and maintained as described? Nominal treatment labels may not equal the exposure animals actually received.
  10. Analysis: Did the statistical model match the unit, repeated measures, multiplicity and missing outcomes? A precise p-value cannot repair a mismatched unit or unaccounted comparison structure.

Read the complete appraisal framework.

Where it is used

Reuse the reviewed citation boundary

Download CSL-JSON or download RIS. Both retain this record's support, limitation and review note.

Challenge a transcription, interpretation or missing boundary. A challenge changes the record only after editorial review.