Boring isopods damage expanded polystyrene floats under docks and, in the process, expel copious numbers of microplastic particles. This paper describes the impacts of boring isopods in aquaculture facilities and docks, quantifies and discusses the implications of these microplastics, and tests if an alternate foam type prevents boring. Floats from aquaculture facilities and docks were heavily damaged by thousands of isopods and their burrows. Multiple sites in Asia, Australia, Panama, and the USA exhibited evidence of isopod damage. One isopod creates thousands of microplastic particles when excavating a burrow; colonies can expel millions of particles. Microplastics similar in size to these particles may facilitate the spread of non-native species or be ingested by organisms causing physical or toxicological harm. Extruded polystyrene inhibited boring, suggesting this foam may prevent damage in the field. These results reveal boring isopods cause widespread damage to docks and are a novel source of microplastic pollution.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 August 2025.
All research outputs
#1,981,915
of 28,968,377 outputs
Outputs from Marine Pollution Bulletin
#753
of 11,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,589
of 185,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Marine Pollution Bulletin
#7
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,968,377 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,014 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 185,659 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
